Motorways of the Sea - European Commission · The evaluation covers the period 2001-2013 and therefore excludes Motorways of the Sea (MoS) projects funded under the Connecting Europe

Written by ICF in association

with TRT and ISL

April 2017

Motorways of the Sea: An ex-post evaluation on the development of the

concept from 2001 and possible ways forward

Final Report

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport (DG MOVE)

Directorate D — Logistics, maritime & land transport and passenger rights

Unit D.1 — Maritime Transport and Logistics

Contact: Evi LARDI

E-mail: [email protected]

European Commission

B-1049 Brussels

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport (DG MOVE)

Motorways of the Sea

April, 2017

Motorways of the Sea: An ex post evaluation on the development of the

concept from 2001 and possible ways forward

Motorways of the Sea: An ex post evaluation on the development of the concept from 2001 and possible ways forward

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union.

Freephone number (*):

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).

LEGAL NOTICE

This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu).

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2017

ISBN 978-92-79-68615-3

DOI 10.2832/08198

© European Union, 2017

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.


Table of Contents

List of abbreviations ............................................................................................ i Executive summary ............................................................................................ ii 1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Purpose of the evaluation ........................................................................... 1 1.2 The intervention logic for Motorways of the Sea ............................................. 1 1.3 Evaluation criteria and questions ................................................................. 3

2 Background to the Motorways of the Sea concept ............................................. 6

2.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 6 2.2 Milestones in the development of MoS .......................................................... 6 2.3 Development of the Motorways of the Sea concept ........................................ 6 2.4 2007 Review of the Motorways of the Sea concept ....................................... 15 2.5 Europe 2020 and the growing importance of sustainability – impact on

Motorways of the Sea ............................................................................... 16 2.6 Further revision of TEN-T guidelines ........................................................... 17 2.7 Short Sea Shipping situation and outlook .................................................... 19

3 Study method and approach ........................................................................ 28

3.1 Desk-based research and analysis .............................................................. 28 3.2 Consultation with stakeholders and the European Commission....................... 30 3.3 Detailed project research .......................................................................... 32 3.4 Limitations of the evaluation ..................................................................... 35

4 Overview of Motorways of the Sea funding programmes, project activity and state of play ............................................................................................................ 38

4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 38 4.2 TEN-T programme ................................................................................... 38 4.3 Marco Polo programme ............................................................................. 48 4.4 Projects funded through other funding sources ............................................ 51 4.5 Summary ................................................................................................ 68

5 Findings of the evaluation ........................................................................... 70

5.1 Effectiveness and efficiency of Motorways of the Sea .................................... 70 5.2 Administrative effectiveness and efficiency of Motorways of the Sea .............. 100 5.3 Coherence of Motorways of the Sea .......................................................... 110 5.4 Relevance of Motorways of the Sea ........................................................... 117 5.5 EU added value of Motorways of the Sea ................................................... 120

6 Prospects for the further development of Motorways of the Sea ...................... 124

6.1 (EQ 7.1) What are the emerging and prospective sectors of the Short Sea Shipping activity? What are the potential constraints that hinder their development? How would the concept and institution of MoS need to be changed to meet these future challenges? .............................................................. 124

6.2 (EQ 7.2) How can the EU added-value stemming from the implementation of the MoS program be further maximised? ......................................................... 126

6.3 (EQ 7.3) How can the user friendliness of funding schemes be improved as per the opinion of eligible participants? ........................................................... 126

6.4 (EQ 7.4) What can be done within and beyond the MoS program to further support the development of maritime links and clusters as part of logistics chains at EU, regional and national level? ............................................................ 126

6.5 (EQ 7.5) How the concept can be better aligned with EU policies such as the 2011 White Paper on transport policy, the revised TEN-T Guidelines, the Research and Development Framework Programs, the Integrated Maritime Policy


(Maritime Spatial Planning Directive), the Regional, Neighbourhood and Development Policies? ............................................................................. 127

7 Conclusions .............................................................................................. 128 Annex 1 List of consultees ............................................................................... 143 Annex 2 Topic guides for interviews .................................................................. 148 Annex 3 Written consultation questionnaires ...................................................... 158 Annex 4 List of MoS projects ............................................................................ 170 Annex 5 Reference project fiches ...................................................................... 197

TEN-T ......................................................................................................... 197 Marco Polo .................................................................................................. 227 Interreg ...................................................................................................... 229 ENPI .......................................................................................................... 231

Annex 6 List of key reports, data and other literature reviewed ............................ 235


April, 2017 i

List of abbreviations

CEF Connecting Europe Facility EC European Commission ECA Emissions Control Area EU European Union ERDF European Regional Development Fund ESSF European Sustainable Shipping Forum EUROMED Euro-Mediterranean Partnership DG NEAR Directorate-General for Neighbourhood and Enlargement Negotiations DG REGIO Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy DG MOVE Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport DWT Deadweight Tonnage (carrying capacity in tonnes, including fuel etc.) ENPI European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument GRT Gross Register Ton (2.83 cu.m; measurement used before introduction of GT

(Gross Ton) INEA Innovation & Networks Executive Agency LGTT Loan Guarantee Instrument for TEN-T Projects LNG Liquefied Natural Gas MoS Motorways of the Sea Panamax Maximum size of vessel that can pass through the locks of the Panama Canal) PP Priority Project (TEN-T) RoPax Roll-on/ Roll-off passenger Ro-Ro Roll-on/ Roll-off (horizontal loading/unloading of rolling cargo) SPC Short Sea Promotion Centre SSS Short Sea Shipping TACIS Technical Assistance to the Commonwealth of Independent States TEN-T Trans-European Transport Network TEN-T EA Trans-European Transport Network Executive Agency TEU Twenty-Foot Equivalent Unit (basic size for counting containers) TRACECA Transport Corridor Europe-Caucasus-Asia


April, 2017 ii

Executive summary

Introduction

This report presents the results of a study titled, ‘Ex post evaluation on the development of the Motorways of the Sea concept from 2001 and possible ways forward’. The evaluation was commissioned by the Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport (DG MOVE) of the European Commission. It was undertaken by ICF1 in collaboration with the Institute of Shipping Economics and Logistics (ISL) and Trasporti e Territorio (TRT).

The evaluation started in 2014 and was completed in 2017. It involved2:

a detailed review of 25 ‘reference’ projects that involved beneficiary interviews and scrutiny of final reports and other project documentation where available;

a review of literature and other documentation;

an analysis of data on trends in short sea shipping (SSS);

consultations with Commission officials (12) and with stakeholders (85) such as project beneficiaries and interest groups. Consultations were conducted via meetings, telephone interviews and online surveys.

The evaluation covers the period 2001-2013 and therefore excludes Motorways of the Sea (MoS) projects funded under the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF), the new European Neighbourhood Instrument (ENI), Horizon 2020 and Interreg V programmes.

The Motorways of the Sea concept

The Motorways of the Sea concept was introduced in 2001 as part of the Transport White Paper3. It was envisaged as a way of reviving short sea shipping and thus alleviating some of the congestion and the pressure on bottlenecks in the European road and rail networks. The concept has evolved to include the integration of maritime transport in the logistics chain and pursuit of wider benefits such as improving environmental performance, administrative procedures, training, safety and traffic management4. The intervention logic presented in Figure 1 summarises the MoS objectives, programmes, funds and outputs.

MoS has been supported by various funding mechanisms of which TEN-T and, to a lesser extent, Marco Polo II have been the most important. MoS projects have also been funded under the Interreg programmes, the European Neighbourhood Partnership Initiative (ENPI) (supporting linkages with third countries), the Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA) and the Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development.

The 97 MoS projects funded between 2001 and 2013 had a total spend of €1,915.2 million and an EU contribution of €461.7 million (Table 1). Not all projects submitted for funding are approved and/or taken forward. For example, between 2009 and 2013 there were 71 technically eligible applications under TEN-T, of which 44 were offered funding and 42 went ahead. Common reasons cited by the Evaluation Panel for rejecting proposals were a lack of coherence and technical specification, an insufficient

1 www.icf.com 2 The methodology for the evaluation is set out in Section 3 of the report. 3 European Commission (2001), European transport policy for 2010: time to decide http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/strategies/doc/2001_white_paper/lb_com_2001_0370_en.pdf 4 The evolution of the MoS concept is detailed fully in Section 2 of the report with descriptions of the funds and activities funded set out in Section 4.


April, 2017 iii

regional dimension and omissions of key ports/regions. In addition, many rejected proposals were only weakly connected to established maritime links and did not provide enough analysis on potential modal shifts. This issue was particularly prevalent between in the 2009, 2010 and 2011 TEN-T calls for proposals.

Figure 1. Intervention logic for Motorways of the Sea

Table 1. MoS projects by funding programme (2001-2013)

Funding programme Number ofprojects

Total project cost (€m)

EU contribution (€m)

TEN-T 51 1,471.9 353.1

Marco Polo 4 309.0 14.4

Interreg 16 40.0 21.2

ENPI 9 24.0 23.5

IPA 4 20.5 17.4

RTD FP 13 49.8 32.1

Total 97 1,915.2 461.7

Source: ICF analysis

The MoS concept has provided a policy template for project ideas that are then funded under different programmes. The largest source of funding has been the TEN-T


April, 2017 iv

programme. There are many projects (more than 100 under Interreg alone5) that are in the ‘spirit of MoS’, but not classified as MoS actions. As such, the MoS concept has evolved over the period since 2001 (in terms of the geographical coverage, the funding programmes used, the project themes covered, etc.). A consequence of this is that MoS is seen as a rather broad concept, as opposed to a clear and focused, proposition: one of the comments repeatedly made by stakeholders during the evaluation was that there has been a lack of clarity about the overall MoS goals and objectives. Notwithstanding this, there is still a general view that the project activity associated with the various MoS funding programmes has been sufficiently dynamic to respond to the changing needs of the sector.

Overview

The high level conclusion of the evaluation is that the evolution of MoS project activity has generally had a positive impact on the short sea shipping sector and that it has responded well to the changing needs of the sector. It has resulted in strategically important investments that would not have been made (or not on the same scale or timings), monies levered in, innovative actions (e.g. in respect of the use of supporting use of LNG and methanol fuels, traffic management systems and information systems) and, above all, partnerships being forged between ports, regions and countries within Europe and with Europe’s neighbours.

These achievements are against a backdrop of the post-2008 global financial and economic crisis (short sea shipping volumes fell and, while they have subsequently recovered, are still below pre-2008 levels), volatile fuel prices, strong competition from road freight services and geopolitical uncertainties in many adjoining regions and countries. Inevitably, such wider economic and other circumstances have impacted on trade flows and thus the modal shifts achieved by some projects, especially those funded under the Marco Polo programme. Fluctuating oil prices, changing exchange rates, and administrative and legal obstacles between maritime regions have also been cited by project beneficiaries.

Effectiveness

The evaluation concludes that, overall, the effectiveness of MoS projects has been mixed. Performance needs to be seen in the context of the economic crisis that impacted on all transport sectors across Europe. There have been some successes in encouraging a modal shift (from road to shipping) but the quantitative evidence is poor. Only in Marco Polo was modal shift a measurable target (and in the three completed projects modal shift targets were not fully met.). The data on the impacts on road congestion are weaker still, with baseline information scarce and comparison across the EU infeasible. The project data suggests that the road congestion reductions attributable to MoS are minimal.

There is evidence of innovation and technological advancements funded through MoS. Examples are new approaches to sea traffic management, development of ICT-based systems to support integration in Maritime Single Window developments, scrubber solutions and alternative fuel infrastructure at ports.

There have been some difficulties or delays at the project level in terms of partnership building, procurement, communication and the sharing of sensitive and commercial operation that are not uncommon to analogous, complex, multi-Member State projects.

The geographical scope of the MoS projects only partially correspond to the pattern of actual short sea trade flows. The projects funded in the Baltic Sea and Western Europe MoS corridors correspond reasonably well to the actual trade flows, whilst the two

5 From the KEEP and TRIP databases.


April, 2017 v

Mediterranean MoS corridors are significantly under-represented considering the levels of short sea traffic (the exceptions being projects funded under ENPI and IPA). The take-up of projects in different MoS corridors has been influenced by factors such as legislative changes, previous cooperation/ existing partnerships and the way the calls for proposals were implemented in the different corridors. This is particularly evident from the Baltic Sea region, where changes to legislation (e.g. Directive 2016/802/EU regulating the sulphur content of marine fuels6) and other drivers (e.g. the need for ice breakers) contributed strongly to the active use of EU funding. Additionally, the focus on masterplans in the Baltic Sea region as a basis for project development has also been a factor in a strong supply of project ideas.

As might be expected, projects have worked best where there are established working relationships and partnerships (this is also a factor in the high proportion of Baltic Sea projects).

The EU level coordination mechanisms for TEN-T and Marco Polo II projects have been generally well received (especially the work of INEA) and seen to have added value.

Efficiency

With a hugely diverse range of outputs and few data on project outcomes, it is very difficult to measure the efficiency of MoS funding. Detailed data are available on outcomes (e.g. modal shift and environmental benefits) for Marco Polo. A review of the programme by the European Court of Auditors concluded that the Marco Polo programme suffered from insufficient market uptake, high administrative burden, poor sustainability and deadweight (limited added value). This eventually resulted in the discontinuation of the Marco Polo programme. Part of its programme scope (such as freight services) has been now taken over by CEF.

At the concept/programme level, MoS has been behind other policy areas/programmes in the adoption and take-up of financial instruments and loan schemes, although this is now being encouraged within CEF. In the evaluation period, the funding programmes associated with MoS were very reliant on one-off grants, with no use of EU financial instruments such as loans, guarantees and equity. The Marco Polo programme had a unique mechanism whereby the EU contribution was conditional upon the results of the projects (i.e. the modal shift achieved). This ensured a direct link between the EU contribution and project achievements in terms of modal shift, but the programme’s efficiency was compromised by other factors, as described above.

At a project level there are examples of where projects have helped, or are expected, to improve the efficiency of port and/or short sea shipping systems (e.g. ITS Adriatic multiport gateway – new data management systems, and AnNa – aiding implementation of an EU Directive on reporting formalities).

Projects concerned with deployment of alternative fuels and adapting port facilities to these alternative fuels are expected to contribute to environmental efficiency improvements (e.g. reduced GHG emissions) in the sector.

Relevance

MoS has funded a diverse set of projects. Funding has supported: infrastructure investments to improve the efficiency of specific port operations and transport links; the piloting of new approaches and technologies (particularly in relation to environmental performance and sea traffic management/ single window);

6 Codified Directive 2016/802/EU on the sulphur content of certain liquid fuels, including marine fuels, also called the 'Sulphur Directive' transposing MARPOL Convention Annex VI of the International Maritime Organisation into EU legislation (SECA or SOx-ECA requirements, global sulphur cap, …).


April, 2017 vi

establishment of new or more frequent services; cross-border cooperation, including with neighbouring countries; and, downstream innovation activities and development of prototype technologies.

The analysis of the types of projects funded, and the evidence from the stakeholder consultations, shows that the MoS policy has, to a greater or lesser extent, addressed, or has the potential to address the needs of maritime freight transport / SSS.

MoS has worked with the ‘grain’ of various international obligations (e.g. Annex VI of MARPOL7), EU Directives and Regulations and other non-legislative actions. For example, MoS projects have supported the implementation laws such as the Sulphur Directive and the Reporting Formalities Directive8. This has ensured that stakeholders have a strong interest in the activities that can be funded through the programmes.

MoS has made contributions to policy development and has, through profile-raising and innovative activities, supported policy debates concerning the environment (such as scrubbers and alternative fuels), maritime safety and administrative burdens. In this way MoS has contributed to EU transport policy objectives and to meeting identified needs.

Coherence

There are direct links between MoS and implementation of EU Directives (e.g. the Sulphur Directive, the Reporting Formalities Directive), as well as to EU policies and programmes, such as the research Framework Programmes, the Integrated Maritime Policy, Blue Growth and Regional and Neighbourhood Policies.

MoS has supported EU transport policies (e.g. maritime single windows) and other EU policy objectives, including environmental objectives and the building of external links and sharing of information and good practice with neighbouring countries. The more recent developments in MoS project activity, particularly the greater emphasis on projects with wider benefits, have supported such policy linkages.

The evolution of MoS project activity over several years and across different funding programmes, has helped the spread of MoS into different countries and policy areas. The way that MoS has adapted over time to reflect, and influence, EU policy is a key achievement. Policy makers at EU and national level have been able to adapt it for their purposes, with the result that the MoS concept has extended into downstream innovation, inter-regional collaboration and policies to develop linkages with neighbouring countries. This adaptability has, to some extent, been achieved at the expense of clarity about the overall MoS concept and objectives. The executive agencies and other coordination mechanisms (including the Task Forces and the MoS Coordinator) have added a degree of coherence for prospective applicants to TEN-T and Marco Polo II (and now CEF in the new programming period). Similar coordination mechanisms have not been present for MoS activity funded through other programmes (Interreg, ENPI, IPA and RTD).

Through policy discussions, conferences and events, MoS has facilitated a stronger profile for and consensus in the maritime transport sector, as well as linkages to policy agendas on matters such as the environment and safety.

EU Added Value

The main added value of MoS has been to lever in €1.4 billion of public and private funding for an EU investment of under €500 million (a ratio of ~ 3:1). Much of this

7 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 8 Directive 2010/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on reporting formalities for ships arriving in and/or departing from ports of the Member States and repealing Directive 2002/6/EC


April, 2017 vii

would not have been spent in the same way, if at all, and not on the same timescales. MoS has helped to accelerate investments in ports and the short sea shipping sector. This has led to:

New knowledge that supports innovation and underpins investments in the sector. Examples are: ‘MonaLisa’, which was intended to improve maritime safety through the mapping of safe navigation routes; and, ‘Methanol: the marine fuel of the future’, which tested the feasibility of using methanol as an alternative to the more polluting fuels currently used by the short sea shipping sector.

Improved collaboration between stakeholders and between regions (including cross-border/trans-regional agreements between ports). This has helped to build institutional links between countries and regions as well as providing practical benefits for those directly involved in the project implementation, or in the receipt of advice, technical assistance and information through dissemination events. Interviews with the reference projects highlighted the practical benefits to partner organisations arising from different countries and regions working together.

MoS activity providing the foundations for complementary projects (funded through TEN-T/ CEF, as well as ERDF and Cohesion Funds).

Development of MoS master plans that provide an evidence base on corridor-specific needs and a framework for the prioritisation of infrastructure investment.

Support to the development of the short sea shipping/maritime skills base, contributing to the longer term sustainability of the sector and to economic growth (e.g. ‘TrainMOS’ – which supported 200 students).

Prospects for further development

The MoS concept and the associated funding instruments require continuous adjustment and reorientation to fit the changing needs and drivers of the SSS market. MoS project activity has so far adapted well to changes in short sea shipping, including regulatory changes (e.g. the promotion of LNG and scrubbers is helped by the limits imposed on the sulphur content of fuels).

The CEF Regulation and the 2013 TEN-T guidelines (Motorways of the Sea is not specifically referenced in the legal and financial framework of the other funding programmes such as ENI and ESIF) include provisions for addressing many of the factors that are essential for the successful development of the short sea shipping sector. These include administrative and customs procedures and the implementation of information systems, including traffic management and electronic reporting systems, infrastructure investments for direct land and sea access and hinterland connections, as well as environmental improvements.

The future needs of the sector are also largely reflected in the three areas identified by the European MoS coordinator as the focus for the future development of MoS under CEF:

Environment

Integration of maritime transport in the logistics chain

Maritime safety, traffic management, human element/training.

The focus on the environment, training, safety, traffic management and the integration of maritime transport in the logistics chain is broadly endorsed by the stakeholders consulted for this evaluation.

It is recommended that future support:


April, 2017 viii

Has a focus on projects with wider benefits, as these tend to have a much wider potential application and a lower risk of market distortion. This was particularly emphasised by the Task Forces, Focal Points and trade bodies.

Has a greater emphasis on the ‘demand side’, incentivising logistics firms to use short sea shipping and thus support the achievement of MoS objectives (e.g. modal shift, reduced road congestion) in a context where MoS project activity has focused mostly on supply-side measures.

Recognises that improved inter-modality and integrated supply chains will be important for the future development of the sector. SSS is part of a complex supply chain and only represents one mode within the chain.

Supports efforts to tackle the constraints imposed by administrative and regulatory systems and to increase harmonisation between national systems. The AnNa MoS project was established as a partial response to these issues (supporting ICT-based system integration of National Single Window developments linked to the EU Directive on reporting formalities).

Continuing encouragement for the involvement of third countries (especially neighbourhood countries), with an emphasis on information sharing, technical support and improving trading possibilities as opposed to direct investment in infrastructure.

Ongoing support for more environmental friendly shipping (shortage of LNG bunkering facilities was highlighted as a constraint), and safety measures.

Better coordination of MoS related activity (across all funding programmes) to ensure a better overview of activities as well as a more efficient and coherent approach in individual corridors.

To review and update the sea region masterplans to reflect updated contexts and MoS priorities. The masterplans have proved effective as a context and platform for project ideas and prioritisation.

Greater sharing of information and good practice from funded projects to encourage new project ideas and collaborations. There should also be a closer follow-up and evaluation of projects following their completion. This will help future evaluations in terms of assessing the project/ programme contributions to the MoS objectives.


April, 2017 1

1 Introduction

1.1 Purpose of the evaluation

The purpose of this contract is to provide the European Commission (EC) with:

An ex post evaluation of the Motorways of the Sea (MoS) concept, covering the period 2001 to 2013.

An analysis of prospects for the further development of the concept.

The evaluation considers the development of MoS, from its introduction in 2001. It establishes, for the first time, a comprehensive list of MoS projects funded through different programmes and assesses whether, and to what extent, the MoS has influenced the development of maritime freight transport around Europe. The study also gives outline recommendations on how to better align MoS with the future development of short sea shipping (SSS), EU policies and different funding programmes.

1.2 The intervention logic for Motorways of the Sea

Defining a single detailed intervention logic for MoS is challenging because the concept has evolved over time and because different instruments have been used to implement MoS and these have also evolved over time. Figure 2 provides an intervention logic for the Motorways of the Sea concept. The purpose of the diagram is to produce a summary overview of MoS, its rationale, budgets and projects. It also sets out the outputs and outcomes which underpin the evaluation questions.

The underlying theory at the outset of MoS was that the injection of funds to support the provision of infrastructure and services would generate additional public goods and reduce the modal share of road transport. The corrective action was taken as road has certain advantages over other modes (including short sea shipping). However, MoS has evolved and the policy objectives have changed to embrace environmental concerns; the integration of maritime transport in the logistics chain; and maritime safety, traffic management and training.

MoS provides, via available funding mechanisms, co-financing of agreed measures according to rules laid down in the various financial instruments.

As recognised in the intervention logic, external factors will affect the implementation of MoS. For example:

The strength of trade growth and economic performance in the corridors and Europe as a whole, and not least the impacts of the financial and economic crisis across Europe and especially the impacts on ports and economies in the Mediterranean regions (see below).

External factors that influence inter-modal competition, from fuel costs to technological change to deregulation. The wider expansion of the MoS concept through the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI) has been affected by the consequences of the Arab Spring and the Syrian Civil War.

Other policies at EU, Member State, regional or local level that influence the prospects for MoS projects being conceived, developed and successfully deployed.

The capacity of potential project proponents and partners to invest in new project (ventures, services, concepts, etc.).

During the period covered by this evaluation, the global economy suffered its deepest economic recession in decades and trade growth went into reverse. The short sea shipping sector (together with the wider global shipping sector) struggled to maintain profitability and capacity in many areas. Capital investment, both in the private and


April, 2017 2

public sector, was cut heavily in many countries. There were also significant changes in the structure of the EU’s road freight sector, including the deregulation of access to the carrier profession and full liberalisation of market access.

Figure 2. Intervention logic

Source: ICF based on Decision No 884/2004/EC on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network and Corrigendum9.

In addressing the evaluation questions one is therefore mindful of the wider context, how key influencing factors changed during the period in question, and the impacts those changes had on the MoS.

9 Financial inputs and MoS outputs have been based on the following sources: TEN-T: CEF Transport - Motorways of the Sea ttps://ec.europa.eu/inea/en/connecting-europe-facility/cef-transport/cef-transport-motorways-sea (2008-2013 -updated December 2014); Projects: 2000-2006 Financial Framework http://ec.europa.eu/inea/ten-t/ten-t-projects/ten-t-projects-year/projects-2000-2006-financial-framework Marco Polo: Marco Polo beneficiaries http://ec.europa.eu/transport/marcopolo/about/in-law/beneficiaries/index_en.htm (2003-2013 calls) Interreg: DG TREN (2006) Inventory Interreg (2000-2006) of maritime and logistics projects http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/maritime/studies/doc/mos/mos_2006_06_09_inventaire_interreg.pdf; The North Sea Region Programme (Interreg IV) website - http://archive.northsearegion.eu/ivb/projects/ (2007-2013); ENPI: http://www.enpi-info.eu/maineast.php?id=380&id_type=10; http://www.enpi-info.eu/maineast.php?id=208&id_type=10; https://ec.europa.eu/inea/sites/inea/files/download/MoS/features_motorwaysofthesea_en.pdf; http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sites/devco/files/aap-financing-enpi-south-p2-af-20090701_en.pdf.


April, 2017 3

This principle applies equally to the potential further developments of the MoS concept. The analysis and recommendations for the development of the MoS concept are grounded in an understanding of the future policy and economic environment, and a view of the likely trends in the relevant transport and infrastructure sectors.

1.3 Evaluation criteria and questions

The evaluation of the Motorways of the Sea concept is structured around the following evaluation criteria and questions.

The evaluation criteria are defined as follows10:

Relevance: the relationship between the needs and issues and the objectives of the EU action.

Effectiveness: how successful the EU action has been in achieving or progressing towards its objectives.

Efficiency: relationship between the resources used by the EU action and the changes generated by the intervention.

EU Added Value: Additional value which it can reasonably be argued is due to intervention at EU level, compared to what could have been achieved by intervention at Member State and/or regional level.

Coherence: how well the initiative works with other EU actions (external coherence) and if its particular measures operate together to achieve its objectives (internal coherence).

The evaluation questions included in the study terms of reference are presented below, grouped per evaluation criterion:

Table 2. Evaluation questions

EQ# Evaluation questions

State of Play

1.1 Which type of projects has been funded (developing port capacity, accessibility, intermodal connections, environmental performance, wider benefit actions etc.)? Non-funded proposals (the reasons why, % of successful/non-successful proposals) will also be investigated

1.2 A Which financial sources (TEN-T, Marco Polo, EU structural funds, European Investment Bank funding, state aid, private funding) have been used?

1.2 B Which financial instruments (grants, loans, equity, loan guarantees) have been used?

1.3 Who have been the beneficiaries of funding (e.g. port authorities, port operators, ship owners, ship operators, land carriers, freight forwarders and shippers)?

Effectiveness and efficiency of the policy

2.1 A How effective has the MoS policy been in supporting Short Sea Shipping and providing for an alternative for road transport or in better connecting islands and remote areas?

10 European Commission (2015) Better Regulation Guidelines


April, 2017 4


2.1 B How does the progress in different corridors compare?

2.1 C Is there evidence that MoS projects have aided in reducing road congestion in linked areas?

2.2 How well does the geographical scope of the MoS projects correspond to the pattern of actual trade flows between EU ports as well as between EU and third country ports?

2.3 A Have the financing schemes (be it a single financial instrument or a mix of different instruments) been effective in terms of providing right incentives to participants and why?

2.3 B What has been the leverage of EU funding?

2.4 A Has this range of beneficiaries been optimal for the achievement of the objectives of the MoS policy?

2.4 B How did SMEs benefit from the implementation of MoS?

2.5 What have been the main difficulties of realising the projects (e.g. national legislation, change in market dynamics, technical state of available vessels, adequacy of information systems, cooperation between the players in the logistical chain, infrastructure weaknesses within a port, infrastructure connections with the hinterland, port formalities, competition between ports, various time delays and cost factors)?

2.6 What have been the improvements in terms of regularity, frequency, efficiency and flexibility of the MoS routes and the connections between ports and hinterland?

2.7 To what extent have the administrative procedures, which apply to maritime transport in the EU, hindered or aided the realisation and exploitation of MoS routes?

2.8 A How has the establishment of a coordination mechanism (including five task forces, four corridors, a European coordinator, Commission services, executive agencies) helped to improve the performance of MoS in particular to: selecting and funding projects?

2.8 B How has the establishment of a coordination mechanism (including five task forces, four corridors, a European coordinator, Commission services, executive agencies) helped to improve the performance of MoS in particular to: awareness raising of potential participants?

2.8 C How has the establishment of a coordination mechanism (including five task forces, four corridors, a European coordinator, Commission services, executive agencies) helped to improve the performance of MoS in particular to: coherence / complementarity with national / regional projects / funds / policy?

2.9 In how far have the mechanisms in place to monitor progress in the development of MoS helped achieving the objectives?

Coherence of the policy

3.1 Has the MoS policy contribute to the achievement of other policy objectives in the EU transport policy (e.g. national single


April, 2017 5


windows, use of LNG)?

3.2 How has the funding of the EU neighbouring policy supported the take-off of MoS in EU neighbouring countries?

3.3 Is there evidence that the MoS projects have created conditions for deterioration of competition, meaning that beneficiaries of EU funding or state aid have received unfair competitive advantages compared to those operating without aid?

Relevance of the policy

4.1 To what extent does the MoS address the identified needs (e.g. environmental, congestion mitigation)?

4.2 Based on the development of the definition and objectives of the MoS over time, is it still aligned with the needs in the maritime freight transport and Short Sea Shipping?

EU added value

5.1 To what extent has the MoS policy added benefits to what would have resulted from MS’ interventions only?

5.2 For the projects deemed as successful, what was the positive effect at EU, regional and local level?

Other issues to be evaluated

6.1 What is the feedback from the MoS taskforces on all the above criteria?

Prospects for the further development of Motorways of the Sea

7.1 What are the emerging and prospective sectors of the Short Sea Shipping activity? What are the potential constraints that hinder their development? How would the concept and institution of MoS need to be changed to meet these future challenges?

7.2 How can the EU added-value stemming from the implementation of the MoS program be further maximised?

7.3 How can the user friendliness of funding schemes be improved as per the opinion of eligible participants?

7.4 What can be done within and beyond the MoS program to further support the development of maritime links and clusters as part of logistics chains at EU, regional and national level?

7.5 How the concept can be better aligned with EU policies such as the 2011 White Paper on transport policy, the revised TEN-T Guidelines, the Research and Development Framework Programs, the Integrated Maritime Policy (Maritime Spatial Planning Directive), the Regional, Neighbourhood and Development Policies?


April, 2017 6

2 Background to the Motorways of the Sea concept

2.1 Introduction

This section presents an overview of the background to, and evolution of, the Motorways of the Sea concept up to 2013. It also introduces the relevant legal and financial frameworks for the implementation of Motorways of the Sea (MoS).

MoS has been adopted as a priority for a number of funding programmes, both explicitly and implicitly. The integration of Motorways of the Sea is most explicit within the TEN-T and Marco Polo programmes that provided funding for MoS projects up to 2013. The subsections below therefore focus on these two programmes in particular. Actions and activities that promote the Motorways of the Sea concept have also been implemented through other funding sources, specifically the EU Structural Funds (especially through Interreg financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)), the Cohesion Fund, the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI), the Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA) and the Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development.

The main sources of information for this section were European Commission reports and documentation (including white papers, official communications and regulations), and a European Parliament study on Motorways of the Sea11.

2.2 Milestones in the development of MoS

The main milestones in the history of MoS, and the programmes they relate to, are summarised in Table 3.

2.3 Development of the Motorways of the Sea concept

The Community guidelines for the development of a Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) by 2010 were adopted in 1996. They included eleven priority projects (Decision No. 1692/1996/EC). One of the priority projects was dedicated to the development of seaports and setting out objectives which have shaped the development of the Motorways of the Sea concept.

2.3.1 European Transport White Paper

The Motorways of the Sea concept was not formally introduced until 2001. The 2001 Transport White Paper12 mentioned ‘sea motorways’ as a way of reviving short sea shipping and thus alleviating some of the congestion and relieving pressure on the bottlenecks in the European road and rail network. Better connections between ports, rail and inland waterway networks, together with improvements in the quality of port services, were put forward as priorities. The 2001 Transport White Paper did not present a clear definition of Motorways of the Sea concept, but noted that it should be taken forward in the future revision of the trans-European networks.

A programme for the promotion of short sea shipping followed in 200313. This provided more concrete actions than the 2001 White Paper and envisaged legislative action on the development of the Motorways of the Sea (this was provided by the 2004 TEN-T guidelines - see section 2.3.3). Opportunities were identified for development of the Motorways of the Sea concept.

11 European Parliament (2014), Improving the Concept of ‘Motorways of the Sea’ 12 European Commission (2001), European transport policy for 2010: time to decide http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/strategies/doc/2001_white_paper/lb_com_2001_0370_en.pdf 13 European Commission (2003), Communication from the Commission: Programme for the Promotion of Short Sea Shipping COM(2003) 155 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=URISERV:l24258&from=EN


April, 2017 7

Table 3. Milestones in the development of the Motorways of the Sea concept

Year Milestone Policy/Event Relevant programmes

2001 European Transport White Paper

Introduces the MoS concept. All

2003 Programme for the Promotion of Short Sea Shipping – COM(2003) 155

Communication from the Commission, which sets out a programme for the promotion of short sea shipping within the EU, consisting of legislative, technical and operational actions.

All

2003 High-Level Group on the trans-European transport network (TEN-T)

Identifying the priority projects of the trans-European transport network up to 2020 and reviewing the Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network.

TEN-T and Marco Polo

2003 First Marco Polo programme -EU Regulation 1382/2003

Introduction of first Marco Polo programme to reduce road congestion and to improve the environmental performance of the freight transport system within the Community and to enhance inter-modality, thereby contributing to an efficient and sustainable transport system.

Marco Polo

2004 TEN-T guidelines - Decision No 884/2004

Established legal framework for MoS, introducing MoS into the trans-European transport network. Established role of a MoS coordinator to facilitate dialogue between member states (first coordinator appointed in 2007). Designation of four corridors to focus financial support (requiring at least two member states to submit proposals – for specific projects).

TEN-T

2004 Executive Agency for Competitiveness and Innovation (EACI)

EACI established to manage the implementing measures of the Marco Polo programme.

Marco Polo

2005 A Vademecum issued in conjunction with the call for proposals

Explains the requirements for applying for funding for Motorways of the Sea projects within the meaning of Art. 12a TEN-T Guidelines. It also describes the necessary information to be submitted, which will allow the Commission to evaluate such projects.

TEN-T


April, 2017 8


2005-2007

Motorways of the Sea Master Plans

Development of Motorways of the Sea Master Plans which provided a framework for the identification of Motorways of the Sea projects through calls for proposals and for their subsequent deployment.

TEN-T

2000-2006 (2007-2013)

Interreg III - Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999

The Interreg programme has contributed, particularly during the early years, to the development of the concept of sea motorways by supporting coordinated actions and pulling together key stakeholders in the corresponding geographic regions.

Interreg

2006 European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument - Regulation (EC) No 1638/2006

Main financial mechanism through which assistance is given to the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) partner countries, as well as Russia. Replaced the MEDA instrument that was supporting the Euro-Med Partnership and the TACIS instrument for the Eastern neighbours, as well as other financial mechanisms.

ENPI

2006 Ministerial Conference on MoS (Ljubljana)

Established five geographic task forces covering the four corridors and the Atlantic to identify and evaluate joint proposals. Funding routes established through TEN-T and Marco Polo II programmes


2006 Second Marco Polo programme - EU Regulation 1692/2006

Introduction of Motorways of the Sea as a specific action in the second Marco Polo programme (2007-2013).

Marco Polo

2006 Trans-European Transport Network Executive Agency (TEN-T EA)

TEN-T EA established to manage the technical and financial implementation of the TEN-T programme (As of 2014, ‘replaced’ by the Innovations and Networks Innovation Agency (INEA) which also took over the responsibilities for Marco Polo projects from the Executive Agency for Competitiveness & Innovation (EACI)).

TEN-T

2007 Commission Working Document on MoS

Report on progress and launch of consultation process on the direction of MoS.

All

2007 Commission communication Extension of MoS to neighbouring countries. TEN-T and


April, 2017 9


on the extension of trans-European transport axes to neighbouring countries

ENPI

2008 Communication on State Aid Guidelines

To allow State aid to operational costs of Marco Polo selected projects up to 35% over five years, and for State aid to start up investments in TEN-T MoS projects up to 30% for two years.


2009 Revised Marco Polo programme - EU Regulation 923/2009

Amendment to the 2006 legislation - simplifying procedures and raising benefits.

Marco Polo

2009/ 2010

MoS Help Desk Providing support to prospective projects and their sponsors. All, but primarily TEN-T and Marco Polo

2011 Transport White Paper Reinforcing importance and role of MoS. All

2013 Revised TEN-T guidelines Redefined MoS as the maritime dimension of the trans-European transport network and contributing to a European maritime transport space without barriers (launched in 2009)

TEN-T

2013 European Court of Auditor report on the Marco Polo programme

The Court found that the Marco Polo programmes (I and II) were ineffective in as much as they did not attain their output targets, they had little impact in shifting freight off the roads and there are no data to assess the expected benefits of diminishing the environmental impact of freight transport, easing congestion and improving road safety. As such, it was recommended that the Marco Polo programme is discontinued.

Marco Polo

2014 Establishment of Connecting Europe Facility (CEF)

Main funding for MoS 2014-20 TEN-T


April, 2017 10


2014 Athens Declaration An Informal Maritime Ministerial meeting in Athens issued a statement recognising the importance of the shipping sector to the European economy and calling on the European Commission and Member States to “make all relevant efforts to reach a high-ambition agreement for shipping”.

All, but particularly TEN-T/ CEF

Source: ICF from European Commission reports and documentation (including white papers, official communications and regulations), as well as European Parliament (2014), Improving the Concept of ‘Motorways of the Sea’


April, 2017 11

2.3.2 High Level Group Report on the Trans-European Network

One of the opportunities identified was to include the Motorways of the Sea concept in the revision of the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) guidelines.

The revision of the guidelines was led by a High-Level Group chaired by Mr Karel van Miert, a former Commissioner for Transport and Commission Vice-President. The 2003 Report of the High Level Group on the Trans-European Network (the van Miert Report) was a very important element of the Motorway of the Sea implementation process both for TEN-T and for Marco Polo (the EU programme to reduce road congestion and its resultant pollution through the promotion of transport alternatives, including shipping)14. A Marco Polo objective was to support new short sea shipping services.

The High-Level Group recommended that the development of the Motorways of the Sea should be included as a priority project in the TEN-T guidelines. It defined the four ‘Motorways of the Sea’ corridors that have formed the basis for the subsequent TEN-T Motorways of the Sea calls for proposals. Member States have been asked to devise projects of common interest for these Motorways of the Sea areas and/or support the links between them. The four Motorways of the Sea corridors it defined, illustrated in Figure 3, were:

Motorway of the Baltic Sea (linking the Baltic Sea Member States with Member States in Central and Western Europe, including the route through the North Sea/Baltic Sea Canal);

Motorway of the Sea of Western Europe (leading from Portugal and Spain via the Atlantic Arc to the North Sea and the Irish Sea);

Motorway of the sea of South-East Europe (connecting the Adriatic Sea to the Ionian Sea and the Eastern Mediterranean to include Cyprus); and

Motorway of the sea of South-West Europe (western Mediterranean), connecting Spain, France, Italy and including Malta, and linking with the motorway of the sea of South-East Europe, including to the Black Sea)15.

2.3.3 Trans-European Network Guidelines - A legal and financial framework for Motorways of the Sea actions

Motorways of the Sea was included as one of 30 priority projects in the TEN-T guidelines adopted in 200416. This provided a legal and financial framework for Motorways of the Sea actions. According to Article 12a of the revised TEN-T guidelines the objectives of the trans-European network of Motorways of the Sea are to:

concentrate flows of freight on sea-based logistical routes in order to reduce road congestion; and

improve access to peripheral and island regions and states.

Article 12a also states that proposed projects should involve at least two Member States and that they should generally involve both the public and private sectors.

14 European Commission (2003), High-Level Group on the trans-European transport network (TEN-T) report http://ec.europa.eu/ten/transport/revision/hlg/2003_report_kvm_en.pdf 15 Following the 2007 EU enlargement (Bulgaria and Romania), project proposals were also asked also address the Black Sea area. 16 Decision No 884/2004


April, 2017 12

Figure 3. Motorways of the Sea corridors

Source: European Commission

The Motorways of the Sea corresponded to the four corridors introduced above (section 2.3.2 and Figure 3). Funding was to be targeted at investment in facilities and infrastructure at specific ports and/ or investment in activities that have wider benefits. Such wider benefit activities were not linked to specific ports and could include ice-breaking and dredging operations, as well as information systems including traffic management and electronic reporting systems17. Start-up aid to cover capital costs could also be granted if deemed necessary for the financial viability of a project (albeit limited to two years). The aid could not, however, lead to distortions of competition in the relevant markets.

Following a Vademecum issued in conjunction with the call for proposals for TEN-T in 200518, it has also been possible to fund Motorways of the Sea studies through TEN-T. The majority of the proposed Motorways of the Sea projects have been studies. The aim of the studies has been, inter alia, to identify the potential transport routes, existing and forecast cargo flows attracted by the planned service, development needs, the service’s share of the market, impact assessment, implementation and financing. These studies could also identify sub-projects and propose a plan for the implementation of the Motorways of the Sea project. As detailed in section 5.1.7, studies could be financed by up to 50% - a higher co-financing rate than that available for implementation (or works) projects (which had a co-financing rate of up to 30%).

2.3.4 Development of Motorways of the Sea Masterplans

Article 18 of the TEN-T guidelines requested that the Commission submit an initial list of specific projects of common interest. Whilst such a list was not fully achieved, a

17 Decision No 884/2004 and Article 13.5 (c) of Decision No 661/2010 18 European Commission (2005), Motorways of the Sea Art. 12a of the TEN-T Guidelines: A Vademecum issued in conjunction with the call for proposals TEN-T 2005


April, 2017 13

number of Motorways of the Sea Master Plans were written between mid-2005 and mid-2007 and these provided the basis for projects:

Baltic Maritime Outlook19 - This was part of the ‘Master Plan Studies for development of the Motorways of the Baltic Sea’ project and presented the (then) current status and a forecast of the maritime transport sector in the Baltic Sea region. Specifically, the purpose of the study was to increase knowledge of the current situation of goods flows and maritime infrastructure, and of as the likely future development and demand of maritime transport in the Baltic Sea region. The study targeted both the intra-regional and extra-regional dimension of trade and transport. This was necessary for the further development of transport policies, infrastructure planning of joint actions in the Baltic Sea region and the development within the industry.

Preparing Portugal for Motorways of the Sea20 - This study defined the concept and requirements from a Portuguese perspective for the Motorways of the Sea. It assessed the capabilities of the Portuguese port and maritime system, defined the criteria and requirements for the operationalisation of the Motorways if the Sea and evaluated the capacity of ports and operators.

Western Europe Sea Transport and Motorways of the Sea (WESTMOS) support study21 - This study supported the development of the Motorways of the Sea of Western Europe. It included a market analysis and assessed the impact of various subsidy schemes on the market.

East-Mediterranean Motorways of the Sea Master plan study22 - This study involved the elaboration of a Master plan for the development of the Motorways of the Sea in the Eastern Mediterranean. It identified a number of potential Motorways of the Sea corridors and analysed what was required for their implementation.

A common feature of these master plans is that they provided a framework for the identification of Motorways of the Sea projects through calls for proposals and for their subsequent deployment. The TEN-T guidelines23 required projects of common interest of the trans-European network of motorways of the sea to be selected through one of the following tendering processes:

a public call for tenders organised jointly by the Member States concerned, intended to establish new links from the Category A port, as defined in Article 12(2), which they select in advance within each sea area;

insofar as the location of the ports is comparable, a public call for tenders organised jointly by the Member States concerned and targeting consortia bringing together at least shipping companies and ports located in one of the sea areas.

2.3.5 Marco Polo programme

The MoS concept has also been directly and explicitly supported through the Marco Polo programme. The Marco Polo programme was launched in 2003 to reduce road

19 http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/maritime/studies/doc/mos/2006_baltic_maritime_outlook.pdf 20 http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/maritime/studies/doc/mos/portmos_final_report_global_d13.pdf 21 http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/maritime/studies/doc/mos/west_mos_deliverable8.pdf 22 http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/maritime/studies/doc/mos/east_med_deliverable5.pdf 23 Decision No 884/2004 and Decision No 661/2010


April, 2017 14

congestion, to improve the environmental performance of the freight transport system within the Community and to enhance intermodality24, thereby contributing to an efficient and sustainable transport system.

The first Marco Polo Programme, as set out in EU Regulation 1382/2003, featured three types of actions:

• modal shift actions, which focused on shifting as much cargo as possible under current market conditions from road to short sea shipping, rail and inland waterways;

• catalyst actions, which aimed to change the way non-road freight transport was conducted in the Community; and

• common learning actions, which sought to enhance knowledge in the freight logistics sector and foster advanced methods and procedures of cooperation in the freight market.

Motorways of the Sea was not included as a specific action until the 2007-2013 Marco Polo II programme (Regulation 1692/2006 and later updated by Regulation 923/2009), but the original Marco Polo regulation specified that new concepts such as ‘motorways of the sea’ deserved ‘special attention’ in the catalyst actions.

2.3.6 Linkages with external regions

The High-Level Group mentioned above also considered Motorways of the Sea to have a role in creating linkages with regions outside the EU, although this was not fully reflected in the TEN-T guidelines until later revisions.

In 2007 the Commission adopted a Communication on the ‘Extension of the major trans-European transport axes to the neighbouring countries’25. The document identified Motorways of the Sea as one of five axes contributing to promotion of international exchange, trade and traffic between the European Union and its neighbouring countries. In particular, the Motorways of the Sea were considered to provide important links to the Baltic, Barents, Atlantic (including Outermost Regions26), Mediterranean, Black and the Caspian Sea areas as well as the littoral countries within the sea areas and with an extension through the Suez Canal towards the Red Sea.

Recognising this potential, the Motorways of the Sea concept has been promoted and supported in neighbourhood countries through the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI)27. The ENPI is the main financial mechanism through

24 Intermodal transport can be defined as the movement of cargo from origin to destination by several modes of transport and involving different transport providers or entities, each with their own contract. This is slightly different to multimodal transport which only involves a single contract. 25 European Commission (2007), Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament - Extension of the major trans-European transport axes to the neighbouring countries: Guidelines for transport in Europe and neighbouring regions COM(2007) 32 26 Canaries Islands, Azores and Madeira 27 This has, since 2014, been replaced by the European Neighbourhood Instrument (ENI) for the current programme period (2014-20). In addition to the ENPI, financial support is also available through the Neighbourhood Investment Facility (NIF). Launched in 2008, the NIF is a financial instrument used as part of the ENP. Its primary aim is to support key investment infrastructure projects in the transport, energy, social and environment sectors as well as to support private sector development (in particular SMEs) in the Neighbourhood region. It does this by providing funding in the form of grants that complement loans from European Public Finance Institutions, such as the European Investment Bank (EIB), the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), the Council of Europe Development Bank (CEB) and the Nordic Investment Bank (NIB). By the end of 2013, the NIF has supported over 80 projects (€753


April, 2017 15

which assistance is given to the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) partner countries, as well as Russia. It was introduced in January 2007 and replaced the MEDA instrument that was supporting the Euro-Med Partnership and the Technical Assistance to the Commonwealth of Independent States (TACIS) instrument for the Eastern neighbours, as well as other financial mechanisms.

2.4 2007 Review of the Motorways of the Sea concept

Despite this progress in its development and implementation, there was still a perceived lack of clarity about the Motorways of the Sea concept among many stakeholders. This resulted in very limited project activity. A Commission Staff Working Document was prepared in 200728 to:

provide a state of play update on the development of the Motorways of the Sea; and

consult on possible new initiatives to broaden the concept of Motorways of the Sea within the wider development of high-quality Short Sea Shipping.

The report acknowledged that the take-up of EU project funding had been slow, but noted that there were some early indications from the (then) Marco Polo II call for proposals that suggested a growing appetite in the private sector to apply for public funding to support Motorways of the Sea projects. It also noted that Member States had started to work in close cooperation with industry to support the development of the Motorways of the Sea. The main conclusion and recommendation of the report was that the success of Motorways of the Sea required action beyond the framework of the Trans-European transport network. It called for improvements in co-ordination and clarity between the various funding sources available to help develop the Motorways of the Sea. The report suggested that a possible way forward was the establishment of a one-stop help desk that could provide information on all the relevant sources of financing and support the financial engineering of Motorways of the Sea projects. Such a service was provided to prospective project beneficiaries and other stakeholders through the MoS Help Desk (launched by TEN-T EA and EACI in 2010). The report also saw value in the establishment of specialised Commission executive agencies. Specifically, these were seen to have accelerated the evaluation, contracting and follow-up of both TEN-T and Marco Polo project proposals. It was also believed that they would be able to dedicate more time to promotion of the TEN-T and Marco Polo II among the transport industry and cargo owners/shippers.

The report highlighted the need to clarify the rules on the maximum intensity of State aid. At the time, different rules applied to different instruments, giving the potential for conflicts when different sources of EU and/ or national financing were combined. As a result of these concerns, the Commission subsequently issued an adjustment to the Community guidelines on State aid to maritime transport in 2008 to streamline the rules for aid under the different instruments. Specifically, it allowed for State aid to operational costs of Marco Polo selected projects up to 35% over five years, and for

million), one of which has the potential to support the Motorways of the Sea concept - EU Neighbourhood Programme Management and Support in the Transport Sector. One of the objectives of this programme is to move towards integrated infrastructure in the Mediterranean by fostering on going European Commission-led initiatives such as the extension of the TEN-T beyond the EU’s borders and the development of the future Trans-Mediterranean Transport Network. There are also opportunities for bi-lateral MoS projects to be supported through the European Maritime Safety Agency (there has been cooperation on other transportation modes, notably aviation between France and Moldova). Studies can also be funded under the Integrated Border Management Eastern Partnership and the Investment Facility for Central Asia (IFCA). 28 European Commission (2007), The EU's freight transport agenda: Boosting the efficiency, integration and sustainability of freight transport in Europe. Report on the Motorways of the Sea: State of play and consultation


April, 2017 16

State aid to start up investments in TEN-T MoS projects up to 30% for two years. State aid has been used in two out of the four Marco Polo MoS projects.

2.5 Europe 2020 and the growing importance of sustainability – impact on Motorways of the Sea

In recent years there has been a further evolution of the MoS concept. The Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth was presented in 2010. The increased focus on sustainable growth in Europe 2020, including the climate and energy targets, has also been reflected in the Motorways of the Sea activities in recent years, particularly within the framework of TEN-T (see also Section 2.7.3 below which comments on environment trends, including the use of liquefied natural gas (LNG)). The use of LNG for short sea shipping in the Annual Report of the European Coordinator for the Motorways of the Sea. The 2013 work programme also identifies sustainability as part of the general aim of the TEN-T MoS network:

‘The aim of the TEN-T MoS network is to promote the general sustainability and safety of transport in particular by providing an alternative to congested or less environmentally-friendly land transport. It should contribute to the common effort addressing climate change. Also, it should strengthen the cohesion of the EU by facilitating connections between Member States and between European regions, and by revitalising peripheral regions.’29

This increasing focus on sustainability, including safety and environmental protection, has been reflected in the selection of project proposals in recent years.

Another influence on this trend has been the introduction of Sulphur Emission Control Areas (SECAs) in the Baltic and North Seas, including the English Channel. There are various options available for ship operators operating in SECAs in the Baltic and North Seas to meet the new sulphur in fuel requirements, including switching to marine gas oil (MGO), using scrubbers or alternative fuels such as LNG. The latter two are more challenging and have been the subject of a number of Motorways of the Sea projects. The environmental sustainability aspect of transport is also stressed in the 2011 White Paper on Transport.

As part of the EU strategy aimed at fostering the development of Motorways of the Sea and short sea shipping services, a Communication on the establishment of a European maritime transport space without barriers was issued. This Communication was designed to harmonise and simplify administrative procedures in short sea shipping. The Commission proposed to:

simplify customs formalities for vessels transporting goods between EU ports;

adopt Directive 2010/65/EU simplifying port reporting formalities;

simplify administrative procedures for vessels sailing between EU ports, but having a call in a non-EU country or a free zone;

make electronic data transmission more efficient by creating “e-maritime” systems;

establish “national administrative single windows ” for port formalities by 1 June 2015;

rationalise the regulations applicable to the intermodal transport of dangerous goods, where maritime and land regulations overlap.

29 European Commission (2013), TEN-T Multi-Annual Work Programme 2013 Annex


April, 2017 17

The need to harmonise and simplify administrative procedures in short sea shipping has also been reflected in the TEN-T Motorways of the Sea project activity from 2010, with a growing number of projects focusing on information systems.

2.6 Further revision of TEN-T guidelines

The TEN-T guidelines were revised again in 2010 (Decision No 661/2010/EU) but the changes did not result in any major changes to the Motorways of the Sea priority project (PP21). The 2010 revisions were subsequently repealed and replaced in 2013 by EU Regulation No. 1315/2013. This resulted in the establishment of the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF), one of the funding instruments for TEN-T30.

The new TEN-T guidelines (1315/2013) provide a number of new opportunities for MoS activities, including cooperation with third countries. This cooperation is, however, limited to involvement in studies or pilot actions (no works are allowed in third countries). The new TEN-T guidelines also further highlight the opportunities for activities that have wider benefits, including those relating to environmental performance (e.g. the provision of shore-side electricity to reduce emissions). This increased focus on sustainability reflects the priorities of the Europe 2020 strategy.

The CEF Regulation (1316/2013) defines the core network of transport infrastructure. This identifies nine corridors, all of which start and/ or end in a port (Figure 4). As such, the Motorways of the Sea will be used as a maritime dimension of the nine core network corridors31.

30 Financial support for projects implementing the TEN-T is also available from the Cohesion Fund (CF) and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) 31 European Commission (2014), Communication from the Commission. Building the transport core network: core network corridors and Connecting Europe Facility, COM(2013)0940


April, 2017 18

Figure 4. TEN-T Core Network Corridors

Source: European Commission (2014)

The CEF is, together with the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESI Funds) and European Fund for Strategic Investment (EFSI), the main source of EU financing for transport infrastructure projects in Europe for the period 2014-2020 and is, since the end of the Marco Polo programme, the only instrument with dedicated Motorways of the Sea funding. Further detail on CEF is presented in the box below for context. CEF is not covered in this retrospective evaluation of MoS as it falls outside the 2001-2013 timeframe defined for the study. However, in the context of possible ways forward for the development and implementation of the MoS concept, both CEF and the 2013 TEN-T Guidelines were considered.

Connecting Europe Facility (CEF)

CEF finances projects which, according to the European Commission, focus on filling the missing links in Europe's energy, transport and digital backbone. Its goal is to make Europe’s economy greener by promoting cleaner transport modes, high speed broadband connections and facilitating the use of renewable energy in line with the Europe 2020 Strategy. The CEF is managed by INEA32.

32 The Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA) is the successor of the Trans-European Transport Network Executive Agency (TEN-T EA), which was created by the European Commission in 2006 to manage the technical and financial implementation of its TEN-T programme.


April, 2017 19

The CEF has three sectors of activity: CEF Energy, CEF Telecom and CEF Transport.

Investments for the CEF Transport sector are programmed via:

Annual Programmes (AP), targeting projects that address transport infrastructure development or shorter-term transport policy priorities.

Multi-Annual Programmes (MAP), focussing on four objectives:

- Objective 1: removing bottlenecks and bridging missing links, enhancing rail interoperability, and, in particular, improving cross-border sections;

- Objective 2: ensuring sustainable and efficient transport systems in the long run, with a view to preparing for expected future transport flows, as well as enabling all modes of transport to be decarbonised through transition to innovative low-carbon and energy-efficient transport technologies, while optimizing safety;

- Objective 3: optimising the integration and interconnection of transport modes and enhancing the interoperability of transport services, while ensuring the accessibility of transport infrastructures; and

- Objective 4: guaranteeing a special focus on Member States eligible for funding from the Cohesion Fund (new Member States joining after 2004 -Cyprus, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia - plus Portugal and Greece).

Motorways of the Sea (MoS), is a horizontal priority of the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF)33 and aims to promote green, viable, attractive and efficient sea-based transport links integrated in the entire transport chain. Their implementation should help to rebalance the EU transport system.

CEF can support studies, pilot actions or implementation measures as well as a combination of studies and implementation – although there is no support for start-up aid.

2.7 Short Sea Shipping situation and outlook

Short sea shipping (SSS) developed from coastal shipping. In the 1950s and 1960s ships of between 299 and 499 gross register tonnage (GRT)34 carried many commodities along the coast of Europe. Later the 1,599 GRT/4,000 deadweight tonnage (dwt)35 type of vessel became more common. In the late 1960s the first 100 TEU (twenty foot equivalent unit36) feeder vessels appeared and in the 1970s specialised truck/trailer carriers were introduced.

The European Commission presented a definition on SSS in a Communication in 199537. This was adapted in 199938, leading to the following definition: ‘Short sea shipping’ means the movement of cargo and passengers by sea between ports situated in geographical Europe or between those ports and ports situated in non-European countries having a coastline on the enclosed seas bordering Europe.

Today, SSS comprises:

34 2.83 cu.m; measurement used before introduction of GT (Gross Ton) 35 Carrying capacity in tonnes (including fuel etc.) 36 Basic size for counting containers 37 Communication from the Commission on the Development of Short Sea Shipping in Europe - Prospects and Challenges, COM(95)317 final, 5 July 1995. 38 Communication from the Commission "The Development of Short Sea Shipping in Europe: A dynamic alternative in a sustainable transport chain Second two-yearly progress report" (COM(1999)317 final, 29 June 1999.


April, 2017 20

Coastal shipping tramp services for bulks (building materials, agricultural products, wood and pulp, coal). The ships are multi-purpose for mini-bulkers in the typical size range of 1,500 to 8,000 dwt, but handy bulkers of 30,000 dwt are also used on short routes.

Tanker shipping for mineral oil products and chemicals with products and chemicals tankers of 3,000 to 37,000 dwt;

Container short sea and feeder services with ship sizes ranging from 300 TEU on short distances with low volume to Panamax39 vessels with 4,000 TEU and more on the longer North Range-Mediterranean trade.

Roll-on / Roll-off (Ro-Ro)40 shipping for trucks/trailers and cars (including RoPax). This type started with a size of 40 trucks (600 lane m41) but today the capacity ranges from 1,000 to 4,000 lane m in SSS.

Dedicated services, especially paper transport.

Pure passenger services, although such ferries no longer exist in Europe except on very short coastal and island routes42.

Particularly relevant in this context are container feeder shipping and Ro-Ro shipping (incl. RoPax). These services compete strongly with land-based transport modes due to high cargo affinity and have consequently been the subject of MoS investments.

Ro-Ro is, in combination with road transport, suitable for fast connections over short distances (up to one day, very seldom more than two days). Loading and unloading is very fast: capacity is increased by the Ro-Ro ship being used several times per day. Container vessels have a higher capacity but the loading time is greater. Containers are moved either with a ship’s cranes (which is comparatively slow) or by shore cranes (which is faster, but more capital intensive). Container transport becomes more cost effective on routes longer than one day and when combined with other high capacity services such as rail or inland shipping.

Sector experts expect short sea shipping to grow as a consequence of increased international trade. Growth is most likely in feeder services linked to intercontinental trade between the Member States and their trading partners, as deep sea services face less competition from other modes.

The competitive dynamics for Ro-Ro services are determined by whether there are alternative service options. For example, there is strong competition between the Eurotunnel and the Calais-Dover services and between the Öresund Bridge and the Helsingør-Helsingborg ferry service. A similar situation is expected between the planned Fehmarnbelt link and the Puttgarden-Rødby service.

Pure short sea services moving freight between EU ports and ports in neighbouring countries may face competition from land-based modes, particularly road transport. Sea routes which have a high affinity to short sea transport (such as freight moves between Germany and Finland, or between Italy and Spain) still have potential for modal shift from road to sea. To fully exploit the potential of maritime transport it is necessary to further enhance the integration of short sea shipping into intermodal logistic chains, including pre- and on-carriage and in terms of accompanying data information.

39 Maximum size for passing through the locks of the Panama Canal. 40 Horizontal loading/unloading of rolling cargo 41 Capacity of Ro-Ro ships in metres of truck lanes 42 Pure passenger services are not included in the analysis as they have little or no truck capacity and an objective of MoS is to concentrate flows of freight on sea-based logistical routes.


April, 2017 21

2.7.1 Container shipping development

The short sea container traffic along the European coastlines comprises a network of services that mostly combine short sea trade between European countries (intra-European trade) and feeder traffic of deep sea containers (extra-European trade). There are two types of service provider: companies specialised in short sea shipping and major ocean carriers or alliances that have their own short sea services. Some of these services are pure feeder services, on others it is possible to book intra-European transports from the respective ports’ hinterlands.

Figure 5. European container shortsea services and their annual trade capacity 2015

Note: Intra-European services only, i.e. excluding North Africa and Near East

Source: ISL based on MDS Transmodal (February 2015 update)

The most important corridors for container traffic (Figure 5) are (i) between the Baltic Sea and the North Sea and (ii) services in the North Sea area, most notably between continental Europe; and the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom. In the south of Europe the highest capacity is employed on intra-Mediterranean short sea services, with the link between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean the next most significant. The corridors are also linked through trans-shipment – e.g. containers from the Atlantic basin being trans-shipped in the North Range for the Baltic Sea. Few services stretch over the three short sea areas, the notable exception being direct North Range-Mediterranean services.

Analysis of ship sizes (Figure 6) shows that the largest units are used on the longer distances. The services between the North Sea and the Mediterranean have an average size of more than 4,000 TEU. Services between the Atlantic Coast and the Mediterranean typically use vessels of approximately 1,700 TEU. The link with the largest volume (North Sea / Baltic Sea) has an average size of only 1,100 TEU in 2015. The Kiel Canal limits the size of ships used and, due to the rather short distance, the economies of scale are limited. Much of the market growth has been accommodated by increasing the number of services (with the industry standard of one call per week) instead of using larger ships.


April, 2017 22

Figure 6. Average ship size of European container shortsea services 2002 and 2015

Note: Intra-European services only, i.e. excluding North Africa and Near East Source: ISL based on MDS Transmodal (February 2002 and February 2015 updates)

The planned Kiel Canal expansion will allow operators to economically use larger ships so a sudden increase of ship sizes is expected (though the canal will continue to limit ship sizes). In the other short sea shipping areas a large part of demand growth will, as in the past, be absorbed by the organic growth of ship sizes.

2.7.2 Ro-Ro shipping developments

The capacities of the Ro-Ro services between 2002 and 2013 have been analysed to illustrate developments in Ro-Ro shipping. The information has been sourced from the publications ‘Market 14’ and ‘Statistics 03’ of ShipPax. The analysis includes ferry and Ro-Ro lines where the ships have a Ro-Ro capacity shown in lane metres. This means that RoPax services are included but that pure passenger/cruise services are excluded from the analysis. Pure passenger ferries are built according to the high speed code with no or minimal truck capacity and the objective of MoS is to concentrate flows of freight on sea-based logistical routes. In terms of the geographical coverage, the analysis covers intra-EU services, as well as services between Member States and a number of countries that have coastal lines neighbouring EU countries; namely Norway, Russia, Morocco, Algeria, Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Israel, Turkey and Montenegro. Services within Member States are excluded.

Two results are common to all three regions (Table 4): the capacity of the ships (ferries and Ro-Ro cargo vessels) is increasing and the number of companies involved is decreasing, i.e. there is consolidation in both respects:

In the Baltic Sea the number of services fell from 78 in 2002 to 68 in 2013. The average capacity per company and vessel increased from 1,300 to 1,850 lane m (i.e. 42%). The average distance remained at 250 nautical miles (nm) and the frequency is still 22 per week on average. This is the highest frequency in Europe and is caused by short routes such as Helsingør-Helsingborg (3 nm). There were 30 companies operating in 2002 compared to 23 now.


April, 2017 23

In the North Sea the number of services is stable at 57, but the other figures are changing. The distance rose from 217 to 309 nm while the frequency went down from 17 to 13 weekly departures in each direction. Capacity grew from 1,600 lane m to 2,230 (i.e. a 40 % rise). There were 18 companies in the market in 2002 but only 14 remained 11 years later.

In the Mediterranean Sea the number of services has been and is still the highest; it decreased from 101 to 86. The average distance rose slightly and the frequency moved from 4.1 to 4.5 sailings per week. Average capacity increased by 75%, from 921 to 1,613 lane m. The number of companies shrank from 56 to 42. The Mediterranean has the lowest frequencies, but, due to the high number of services and longer distances, the highest total capacity and fasted capacity increase43.

In addition to these “Intra” services there are routes linking Baltic ports to North Sea and Atlantic ports. In 2002 ShipPax reported 16 such routes, of which 14 originated from Finnish ports and ended mostly in British and Belgian ports. The majority included a way port such as Helsinki. In 2013 the number of “Inter” routes was down to 12: eight from Finland, two from Sweden and two from Russia. The ports of destination are located in the United Kingdom (5), Germany, Netherlands, Belgium and Spain. Nearly all routes have one or several way ports. The frequency is one to three times per week.

Table 4. Indicative figures on Ro-Ro shipping development in Europe

Baltic Sea Services Freq. per week

Companies Capacity lane m

2002 78 22 30 1,300

2013 68 22 23 1,850

2025 ↘ → ↘ ↗

North Sea Services Freq. per week


2002 57 17 18 1,600

2013 57 13 14 2,230

2025 ↘ → ↘ ↗

Mediterranean Services Freq. per week


2002 101 4.1 56 921

2013 86 4.5 42 1,613

2025 ↘ ↗ ↘ ↗

Source: Analysis on ShipPax

In the near and medium term the number of services is expected to decrease and the average capacity increase. The average size of new Ro-Ro vessels is larger than that of older vessels and the transport cost per unit falls as the ship size increases. Therefore, rising trade volumes will probably be carried in larger ships rather than on more routes and services.

43 Most figures are based on company averages and should therefore be treated as indicative rather than completely accurate.


April, 2017 24

A Ro-Ro fleet analysis confirms the general trend towards larger Ro-Ro vessels (Table 5). Clarkson’s fleet data base includes nearly 1,200 Ro-Ro vessels (disregarding Ro-Ro/container vessels) and nearly 600 ships with lane data44.

Table 5. Active Ro-Ro fleet by year and size class (1/1/2015)

Blue colour shows highest numbers, red colour lowest numbers.

Source: ISL 2015 based on Clarkson fleet data base

2.7.3 Environment

The fuel usually used in sea transport is a residual heavy fuel oil. Air pollution is generated by the combustion of this oil in ships’ engines. Emission Control Areas (ECAs) were established in the EU under MARPOL Annex VI. These cover the Baltic Sea, the North Sea and the English Channel. The use of heavy fuel has been banned in these areas since 1 January, 2015. A similar proposal for parts of the Mediterranean Sea has been discussed45. This will be addressed with the entering into force of the global sulphur cap as of 2020.

The maximum allowed sulphur content of fuel has been reduced to 0.1% within the Emission Control Areas (ECAs) to reduce SOx emissions. There are two ways to bring down the airborne emissions, either using low-sulphur fuels or by treating the exhaust gas which may also lead to additional liquid wastes. Both measures increase the costs of sea transport and these costs are passed onto consumers with the possibility that sea transport loses competitiveness and that freight shifts from sea to road. So far no significant shift from sea to road has been observed46 as a result of the introduction of SECAs, although low oil price may have mitigated the impact. It is expected that, with an increasing oil price, the SECA regulation’s impact on transport costs in shipping will ultimately have some influence on modal split.

Shipping is also a major contributor to particulate matter (PM) emissions and to NOx pollution. The North American coastline is already subject to an ECA. Additional NOx controls and similar measures are likely to be introduced within the Baltic. Compliance with these limits will require further exhaust gas treatment systems or increase the demand for cleaner fuels such as LNG.

44 The six small vessels (below 500 lane m) built between 2010 and 2014 comprise one Norwegian coastal, one Swedish and four Russian vessels of the Ro-Ro landing ship type. The purpose of the Russian vessels is not known but it is assumed that they will have a specialised coastal role. These six ships do not indicate a reversal of a trend towards smaller vessels. 45 Under the Sulphur Directive6, outside of the Emission Control Areas the maximum allowed sulphur content in marine fuel for combustion was reduced from 4.5 % to 3.5 % as of 1 January 2012. This will be further reduced to 0.5 % as of 1 January 2020 within the EU. Globally, the entry-into-force date was set to 2020. The 0.5% date, which was to be reviewed by 2018 (with a view to a possible extension until 2025) has been maintained at 2020 by an IMO decision of October 2016. Passenger ships operating outside a Sulphur Emission Control Area (SECA) in the EU have to use fuels of not more than 1.5% sulphur, while ships berthing in EU ports must comply with a 0.1% sulphur limit. 46 Based on sector expert experience, statistics are not yet available.

Built before 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009 2015 TotalLane mbelow 500 28 20 23 7 2 2 0 6 88 501 - 1,000 52 21 14 11 11 7 5 4 1251,001-1,500 14 22 12 18 12 2 2 1 831,500-2,000 15 5 9 17 28 19 6 8 107over 2,000 6 8 15 9 32 33 30 46 179Total 115 76 73 62 85 63 43 65 582


April, 2017 25

The need to reduce emissions to air from maritime transport has been taken up by the Motorways of the Sea. While, in the beginning of the MoS concept, the focus was put on a modal shift from road to sea, there has been adaptation to the needs of maritime transport by introduction of objectives relating to the improvement of environmental performance. This has led to a large increase in the number of projects targeting reductions in emission from sea transport, often linked to the introduction of ECAs.

Most operators were slow to prepare for the 2015 changes to the SOx limits because the scrubbers used for exhaust cleaning were still being developed. Open loop scrubbers are now more advanced, although the liquid discharges from these are a source of environmental concern. Before the SOx limits were introduced operators did not generally install scrubbers in more than one ship in their fleet. Having gained experience from this ‘piloting’, a number of operators have decided to fit multiple ships with scrubbers.

The number of ships using alternative fuels - including liquefied natural gas (LNG) and methanol fuels - is, however, still very low. Contributory factors include:

Adapting existing ships to use LNG is difficult because the gas tanks need more space than oil tanks. Moreover, whilst engine manufacturers have developed gas engines and multi fuel engines which can be switched from oil to gas when entering ECAs, it is not very cost effective to change the engine on existing ships. As a rule, LNG needs to be incorporated within the design from the start. A few LNG ferries are in service. The widespread introduction of the fuel is also dependent on the availability of suitable bunkering facilities which is slowly improving. Ro-Ro vessels switch between routes more often than ferries and the lack of LNG bunkering facilities in many ports is a high risk for those vessels.

Whilst LNG is often seen as the fuel of the future, some obstacles to its use are not easily removed. Amongst them are the higher cost of new ships, the even higher cost of rebuilding older ships (e.g. the cost of converting the 4,000 lane m STENA GERMANICA to run on methanol was estimated at about €22 million), the adaptation of safety regulations and the availability of LNG in ports. While LNG can be provided by special bunkering ships, railway wagons or trucks, today only a few large ports have LNG bunkering stations. For small ports the installation of such stations is unlikely. It will take time to find a solution to the situation whereby the lack of LNG-fired ships discourages provision of LNG bunkering facilities as the same time as the lack of bunkering facilities discourages acquisition of LNG ships. There are also environmental concerns relating to methane release, as LNG is a transitional fuel and not a wholly alternative source of energy.

Only a few ports offer LNG bunkering facilities. As an example Hamburg announced three solutions by mid-2015: an LNG-fired barge supplying power, land-side power supply and the provision of gas. These solutions were offered to cruise vessels only, in response to demand from this segment of the market.

The costs incurred by ships using heavy fuel have been eased since 2014 by the significant fall in the oil price. While operators had to pay US$ 600 per ton high-sulphur intermediate fuel and US$ 900 for 0.1% marine gas oil (MGO) in mid-2014, the price for the MGO was below US$ 600 at the end of 2014. This allowed MGO to be used at lower cost (the premium difference between the two types of fuel remained) than before and thus slowed down conversions and new construction.

For the older vessels the installation of new engines, tanks and piping is not economic.


April, 2017 26

Ships in ports are a significant source or air pollution within port cities. Ships can switch off their main engines but have to keep their auxiliary diesel generators running to supply energy for light, reefer stores and air conditioning. The ideal case is to switch off the auxiliaries too. This would be possible if plug in shore-side electricity supplies were used. The main obstacles are the lack of power at the berths and the lack of a global standard for the compatibility of ship-side and land-side electrical connections. This so-called “cold ironing” is most easily introduced within berths that are used every day by the same ships, which is why some ferry ports and operators have been first to introduce it. Furthermore, port charges need to be structured so as to provide an economic incentive for the use of shore based power.

Within European waters ice is only common in the Gulf of Finland and Gulf of Bothnia. North European countries and Russia operate ice breakers which can extend the navigational season but not avoid the freezing of the two Gulfs. Modern large ferries keep open the access to the some ports. The situation will further ease with new Russian / Nordic ice breakers and new ports.

2.7.4 Ports

Deep sea services are connected to short sea services (feeder services) at the container terminals of large ports such as Rotterdam and Hamburg. These ports are often located so as to use the carrying capacity of the waterway as long as possible (Hamburg, London, Antwerp).

The situation is totally different in case of Ro-Ro shipping. Ro-Ro is a typical form of sea transport in SSS and plays only a minor role in deep sea shipping47. Ro-Ro shipping terminal locations derive from the railway ferries which link railway networks by the shortest possible sea distance. Later on railway ferries were adapted to carry cars and trucks before dedicated car ferries and truck/trailer carriers were introduced and the sea distances became longer. A coastal location is preferred for Ro-Ro ports to speed up sea transport (e.g. Dover - Calais, Cuxhaven, and Hanko).

In Ro-Ro transport there is a distinction to be made between public transport and dedicated transport services of individual industries. An example of the latter is the carriage of wood, pulp and paper by regular shipping services originating from ports or private terminals with no other purposes. Such services are a feature of the Baltic Sea corridor.

Most main ports have had to adapt their fairways and the terminal capacities to the increasing scale of deep sea ships by dredging, installation of larger container cranes and extending their container and trailer storage areas. For feeder ships and Ro-Ro ships the facilities of main ports are large enough. The problem for feeder ships is the waiting time for a berth if no separate feeder berths are provided.

Draft limitations are more a problem for deep sea ships than for short sea shipping. However, the size of short sea vessels is also increasing, and the concentration of services runs parallel to the elimination of small ports with insufficient water depth and lack of container cranes or marshalling areas for Ro-Ro services. ‘Pre-owned’ container cranes can be bought from large ports when they upgrade to new models to service the latest, larger container ships.

Within the MoS concept it is essential that ports are fully integrated into the information flows along logistic supply chains. A full integration supports a smooth and efficient handling of cargo through ports and shall reduce drawbacks of supply chains with maritime legs because of additional handling processes in ports. Efficient cargo handling in ports is necessary to lower costs of supply chains using sea transport as a

4747 The exceptions are car carriers which have their own network of feeder carriers.


April, 2017 27

main leg in the supply chain. Costs and also time have been proven to be an essential disadvantage for short sea shipping as compared to through-going road transport.

As reflected also in the changes in the MoS concept, the increasing importance of environmental issues in maritime transport also has to be addressed by ports. This impacts both their own services (e.g. emission reduction in cargo handling process via electric Van Carriers (VCs) and automatic guided vehicles (AGVs)) and the provision of services for ship operators that are required to achieve emission reductions (see ‘infrastructure’ section below).

Ports have had to provide the necessary services to vessel operators that use LNG as fuel. There are three options to provide LNG as bunker to vessels: ship-to-ship; shore-ship; and truck-to-ship. The option most suitable to an individual port is determined by factors such as demand for LNG, in-port safety, distance to LNG import terminals, competition among bunker operators, LNG pricing and the financing of the bunker service.

According to the World Ports Climate Initiative (WPCI), LNG bunker terminal infrastructure is available for deep sea, short sea and inland waterway transport in the ports of Antwerp, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Zeebrugge and Stockholm. Other ports offer LNG through LNG bunker vessels or truck fuelling. There are plans to provide additional bunker facilities in a number of ports around Europe. These developments reflect the EU Directive on the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure (2014/94/EU) which determines that a number of ports with high relevance for the European maritime transport sector provide a LNG infrastructure by 2025 at least along the TEN-T Core Network.

It will be essential to connect ports to the nine CNCs in order to fully integrate them into the TEN-T network as intermodal nodes linking corridors instead of using ports only as start and end points in these corridors.


April, 2017 28

3 Study method and approach

This section describes the methodological approach adopted to address the evaluation questions presented in section 1.3. There were three core research elements:

Desk-based research and analysis, including a literature review and project data assembly and analysis. This was used to establish the existing evidence base and to provide a comprehensive, but not exhaustive, list of MoS projects. This is the first time a list of MoS projects from all funding instruments have been collated.

Consultation with stakeholders and the European Commission via semi-structured interviews and solicitation of written responses from additional stakeholders. The consultations have been used to provide answers to the evaluation questions related to MoS rationale, implementation and achievements. They have also informed the identification of options for the further development of Motorways of the Sea. Given the lack of evaluative evidence from secondary sources, the consultations were an important source of evidence for the evaluation.

Detailed project research, involving a more in-depth review of project documentation and data and consultations with project beneficiaries. The detailed project research helped to fill gaps and to address several evaluation questions, by providing more detailed information about the project partners, administrative procedures, project financing, the policy framework and the future evolution of SSS.

The sections below provide more information on each of these research elements. The results of the desk-based research and analysis, consultations and the detailed projects have been brought together in comprehensive answers to the evaluation questions (see Chapter 5).

3.1 Desk-based research and analysis

The purpose of this task was to collect secondary data (both quantitative and qualitative) from various sources to establish the existing evidence base for the evaluation. This included a review of relevant literature and EU policy documentation (see Annex 6 for a list of reports, data and other literature reviewed), as well as an analysis of relevant trade data from the Eurostat Maritime Transport Database (as presented in section 5.1.5). An overview was prepared of the development of the SSS sector over the evaluation period, its current situation and the outlook for the next 5-10 years (as presented in section 2.7).

With the Motorways of the Sea concept not being linked to a specific programme, one of the first tasks was to establish a comprehensive, but non-exhaustive, list of MoS projects. This was a challenging process given that MoS has only been an explicit priority/action within the TEN-T and Marco Polo programmes yet MoS projects have also been supported through the EU Structural Funds (ERDF), the Cohesion Fund, ENPI, IPA and the Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development.

The KEEP project database (http://www.keep.eu/keep/) was an important information source for the identification of MoS projects or projects aligned to the MoS objectives. KEEP provides information on projects and partners of territorial cooperation. This includes the Interreg programmes as well as the IPA (Instrument for Pre-Accession) and the ENPI (European Neighbouring and Partnership Instrument) cross-border cooperation programmes.

A simple keyword search for ‘Motorways of the Sea’ and other similar terms such as ‘sea motorways’ and ‘coastal motorways’ generated 11 projects (excluding those funded through TEN-T).


April, 2017 29

However, recognising that the project descriptions may not always explicitly refer to Motorways of the Sea, a more elaborate approach was adopted which focused on the ‘accessibility’ theme48 and predetermined keywords49 that are particularly pertinent to the Motorways of the Sea concept, namely:

Coastal management and maritime issues

Green technologies

ICT and digital society

Improving transport connections

Infrastructure

Logistics and freight transport

Multimodal transport

Transport and mobility

This generated over 1,400 results.

To provide a more targeted list of projects, the programmes that cover coastal regions were specified (a list of the selected programmes is set out in Annex 8). This reduced the number of projects to around 500.

As some of the keywords included in the search related to areas that are not specific to maritime transport or Motorways of the Sea, more than 500 project descriptions were reviewed to determine whether each project was aligned to the Motorways of the Sea concept. Ultimately, this resulted in an additional 24 MoS projects being identified.

This process was complemented with a wider search for projects using the CORDIS Projects and Results Service50, the Transport Research & Innovation Portal (TRIP) project database, programme websites and more general internet searches.

Analysis of the TRIP database started with ‘water transport projects’. This generated some 343 projects and a degree of overlap with KEEP. The search was refined using term such as ‘motorways of the sea’, ‘short sea shipping’, ‘road congestion’ and ‘modal shift’. This resulted in seven additional projects from the 5th, 6th and 7th RTD Framework Programmes, and Interreg being identified.

Overall, 97 MoS projects have been identified through this study. A variety of data and information has been collated for the identified MoS projects, including project descriptions, type of action (TEN-T), beneficiaries, project duration and project costs (including EU contribution). This is presented in section 4 and Annex 4 of this report. The most detailed data and information on projects is available for TEN-T and Marco Polo projects and this is reflected in the analysis presented in the report.

48 The other three themes are as follows: economic development; environment and climate change; and quality of life. 49 Between one and three keywords are assigned to any project featured in KEEP. The system of keywords in KEEP (42 different keywords were agreed when the database was set up) is important for classifying and storing cooperation projects' data and information independently from the rigid structure of the main themes. In fact, keywords and themes are assigned independently. Keywords allow for more focused project-searches, whereas themes provide overall outlooks. 50 http://cordis.europa.eu/projects/home_en.html


April, 2017 30

3.2 Consultation with stakeholders and the European Commission

3.2.1 Stakeholder mapping/ prioritisation

The consultation element of the evaluation commenced with a general mapping of stakeholders which was based on:

Existing lists of contacts available online (e.g. members of the Focal Points and Short Sea Promotion Centres for Shortsea Shipping and Motorways of the Sea and list of MoS beneficiaries);

Contacts provided by DG MOVE and INEA;

Individuals and organisations identified during the desk research; and

The SSS and maritime expertise of the project team.

Stakeholders, as well as EC services, were grouped according to the following categorisation to allow their prioritisation:

1 = Highly relevant and directly involved in the MoS initiative;

2 = Relevant and indirectly involved in the MoS initiative;

3 = Other.

The prioritisation process was based on parameters such as country, organisation type and involvement in the implementation of the MoS concept. It guided the engagement with the stakeholders. For example, ‘category 1’ stakeholders (a more focused group) were targeted for interviews, whilst ‘category 2’ and ‘category 3’ stakeholders were invited to contribute to the study through written input. Less effort was invested in following-up with ‘category 3’ stakeholders. The ranking system was listed in the interim reports.

Some stakeholders were not interviewed because they did not respond to emails or telephone messages. In a small number of cases the interviewee declined to comment.

3.2.2 Interviews with core stakeholders and the European Commission

Interviews were conducted with beneficiaries from all the 25 reference projects (projects shortlisted for detailed review at the inception phase – see section 3.3):

20 TEN-T reference projects

2 Marco Polo MoS project reference projects (plus the two Marco Polo projects that received state aid)

2 ENPI MoS reference projects

1 Interreg MoS reference project

As some of the interviewed project beneficiaries were involved in more than one project, some additional projects were also covered in the interviews (e.g. follow-on projects such as MonaLisa 2.0, Sustainable Traffic Machines II).

Interviews were also conducted with:

four European stakeholder associations, namely ESPO, ECSA, CLECAT and ESC;

four of the five Regional Task Forces for MoS (North Sea, Baltic Sea, West Mediterranean and East Mediterranean);

eight Member State Focal Points for Shortsea Shipping and Motorways of the Sea; and


April, 2017 31

Transport & Environment, which represents around 50 organisations across Europe (mostly environmental groups and campaigners working for sustainable transport policies at national, regional and local level).

EC services were engaged via interviews with DG MOVE, DG NEAR, DG COMP, DG REGIO (Interreg), DG ENV and DG MARE.

The custodians of the KEEP project database were also consulted. The KEEP project database was particularly useful for identification of MoS-related Interreg, IPA and ENPI projects. INEA were consulted in relation to both TEN-T and Marco Polo projects.

A more detailed list of EC services and stakeholders consulted is presented in Annex 1.

3.2.3 Written consultation

The written consultation took the form of questionnaires sent to the relevant stakeholders. ‘Category 2’ and ‘category 3’ stakeholders were targeted for this consultation.

A written questionnaire was sent to all the Member State Focal Points for Shortsea Shipping and Motorways of the Sea and Short Sea Promotion Centres that were not selected to be interviewed. Ten responses were received.

A short questionnaire focused on the contribution of the projects to the MoS objectives and whether the MoS projects have resulted in follow-up investment was sent to all the TEN-T projects that were not selected as reference projects. Responses were received from 14 projects, representing a response rate of 45%.

Further to the list of consultees identified in the inception report, and at the request of DG MOVE, an additional written consultation exercise was launched. This was targeted at the Member State transport and trade/ commerce attachés and the Member State Chambers of Commerce. Selected European trade/ industry associations were also asked to complete a short questionnaire to forward a written questionnaire to their members. This additional written consultation exercise yielded 19 responses.

A full list of stakeholders that responded to the written consultation is presented in Annex 1.

3.2.4 Analysing the responses to the stakeholder consultations

ICF consulted 12 Commission officials (including agencies) and 85 stakeholders, i.e. 97 consultees in total. In presenting the results of the stakeholder consultations, differences between various types of stakeholders are taken into account. The analysis also makes clear the extent to which opinions and statements are shared by the stakeholders.

Where possible – and where we believe it not to be misleading – the number of responses has been stated. The level of stakeholder support for any particular proposition is indicated by use of the following ‘scale’:

100% - all

90-99% - almost all

50-89% - most

25-49% – many

10-24% - few

5-9% - very few

1-4% - almost none

0% - none


April, 2017 32

The text also makes use of ‘around a quarter/third/half/two thirds/three quarters’ if and when this is possible.

3.3 Detailed project research

For the in-depth project research, 25 reference projects were selected in collaboration with the European Commission and INEA. These projects were selected during the inception stage and thus before a ‘full’ list of MoS projects had been established (e.g. additional projects sourced from the KEEP/TRIP databases)).

The in-depth project research involved an interview with the project manager or equivalent, additional consultations with other beneficiaries (as required and/or as available), and a review of project specific documentation including – for the reference projects and other consulted projects – the final reports prepared for INEA (21 in total).

As agreed with the EC, the focus was on TEN-T projects. Twenty of the reference projects are TEN-T projects selected in discussion with DG MOVE and INEA.

The selection of reference projects cannot be perfectly representative but it does adequately reflect the diversity of project activities. Specifically, in selecting the TEN-T projects, selection parameters included the timing of the activities (i.e. start/ end date), the type of action (studies, works or mixed) and the geographical corridor (for example, Mediterranean projects need to be adequately represented, so that the reference projects did not focus overly on the North Sea/ Baltic Sea corridor projects). The researcher also worked to secure a mix of activity in terms of total project costs and the type of activities supported, as well as projects that have demonstrated good practice. The experience and knowledge of INEA was particularly helpful in selection of good practice examples.

The projects were split into groups reflective of the types of activities undertaken during different time periods. In the early years of the programme (up to 2007) it was primarily master plan studies that were financed through Motorways of the Sea TEN-T. In the period 2008-2009 (there was no call in 2007) all four projects supported improvements in transport links. Since 2010 there has been an increasing focus on projects delivering wider benefit, particularly in relation to information systems and environmental protection. These trends are reflected in the selected reference projects.

The final list of TEN-T reference projects is presented in Table 6.

Table 6. Selected reference projects TEN-T

Year Project Code

Title Action type

MoS corridor Thematic area

2005 2005-SE- 91406-S

Master Plan MOS in the Baltic Sea

Studies Baltic Sea Master planning

2008 2008-EU-21020-P

Motorways of the Sea Esbjerg - Zeebrugge

Works Western Europe

Transport link

2009 2009-EU-21010-P

Baltic Link Gdynia-Karlskrona

Works Baltic Sea Transport link

2010 2010-EU-21102-S

Monitoring and Operation Services for Motorways of the Sea (MOS4MOS)

Studies Cross-Corridor Information systems

2010 2010-EU-21105-S

MIELE Studies Cross-Corridor Information systems


April, 2017 33

Year Project Code

Title Action type


2010 2010-EU-21106-S

ITS Adriatic multi-port gateway

Studies South-East Europe

Information systems

2010 2010-EU-21107-P

Motorway of the Sea Rostock - Gedser

Mixed Baltic Sea Transport link

2010 2010-EU-21109-S

MonaLisa Studies Baltic Sea Safety and environmental protection

2010 2010-EU-21112-S

LNG infrastructure of filling stations and deployment in ships

Studies Western Europe

Safety and environmental protection

2010 2010-EU-21101-S

MoS 24 - ICT based Co-modality Promotion Center for integrating PP24 into Mediterranean MoS

Studies South-West Europe

Information systems

2010 2010-EU-21108-P

The Baltic Sea Hub and Spokes Project

Mixed Baltic Sea Cooperation

2011 2011-EU-21004-S

TrainMoS Studies Cross-Corridor Knowledge network

2011 2011-EU-21007-S

COSTA Studies Cross-Corridor Safety and environmental protection

2012 2012-EU-21023-S

Sustainable Traffic Machines - On the way to greener shipping

Studies Baltic Sea Safety and environmental protection

2012 2012-EU-21013-M

Kvarken Multimodal Link - Midway Alignment of the Bothnian Corridor

Mixed Baltic Sea Transport link

2012 2012-EU-21008-M

Winter Navigation Motorways of the Sea, WINMOS

Mixed Baltic Sea Safety and environmental protection

2012 2012-EU-21017-S

Methanol: The marine fuel of the future

Studies Baltic Sea Safety and environmental protection

2013 2013-EU-21001-P

BRIDGE - Building the Resilience of International & Dependent Gateways in Europe

Works Western Europe

Transport link

2013 2013-EU-21018-S

Pilot Implementation of a LNG-Propulsion System on a MoS Test Track in the Environmental Model Region 'Wadden Sea'

Studies Western Europe

Safety and environmental protection


April, 2017 34

Year Project Code

Title Action type


2013 2013-EU-21015-P

Sustainable Motorway of the Sea Ghent-Gothenburg through environmental upgrade and compliance while maintaining competitiveness of short sea shipping

Works Cross-Corridor Safety and environmental protection


The reference projects for the Marco Polo II programme, Interreg and ENPI, together with a brief rationale for their selection, are presented in Table 7. At the time of selection only a partial inventory of EPNI and Interreg projects was available.

Table 7. Other reference projects (Marco Polo, Interreg and ENPI)

Funding instrument Project title Rationale

Marco Polo II Ro-Ro Past France First Marco Polo II project.

Gulfstream.MOS The chances of being able to contact project beneficiaries were expected to be high because the project finished in March 2015.

Interreg StratMos - Motorways of the Seas Strategic Demonstration Project

This was the only 2007-2013 Interreg project identified at the time of selection. There is a reasonable level of project documentation on the project website – www.stratmos.com

ENPI MEDA MOS II – EUROMED Regional Transport Project

The ENPI MoS projects relate to EUROMED and TRACECA. The two projects selected as references both represent follow-ups of previous projects, i.e. Mediterranean Motorways of the Seas programme (MEDA MoS I); and Motorways of the Sea (MoS) for Black Sea and Caspian Sea. The new TEN-T guidelines provide new opportunities for MoS activities, including connections with third-country ports.

Logistics Processes and Motorways of the Sea II (LOGMOS II)

Source: ICF

In addition to the 25 reference projects mentioned above, and in order to better understand state aid issues, the project leads for FRES MOS and Atlantica (both Marco Polo II) were consulted.

Overall, the ICF team consulted:

34 out of 51 TEN-T projects (including 14 projects covered by the written consultation)


April, 2017 35

All (4) MoS Marco Polo projects

1 Interreg project

2 ENPI projects

All the approved TEN-T and Marco Polo final reports that were provided by INEA were reviewed (18 and 3 reports respectively). The final reports (where available) and project interviews were the primary sources of information for the project fiches. Detailed project fiches were produced for all the 25 reference projects and are presented in Annex 5.

3.4 Limitations of the evaluation

A key challenge for the evaluation was the fluidity of the Motorways of the Sea concept, both in terms of its focus and its implementation through various funding programmes.

As noted above, there is no definitive list of projects that have supported the development and implementation of Motorways of the Sea. A list of projects that are closely connected to MoS objective was developed for the evaluation, but this is unlikely to be fully exhaustive. MoS was an explicit action/ priority in the TEN-T programme (from 2004) and the Marco Polo programme (from 2007) until 2013. The ENPI and the Interreg pan-regional cooperation programmes further developed the MoS concept, explicitly and implicitly. For Interreg more than 100 projects that followed the spirit of MoS but did not make a specific reference to it were identified. MoS activities have also been funded through the Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA) and the Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development.

The evaluation placed a greater focus on TEN-T and Marco Polo - the only funding instruments explicitly targeting Motorways of the Sea. This focus is also reflected in the selection of reference projects (see section 3.3), which were drawn principally from these two programmes (22 out of the 25 reference projects51). Consequently, the evidence base from the project beneficiary consultations is skewed towards these two programmes. Evidence and information from the other funding programmes is more restricted and less robust. This has important implications for the response to the evaluation questions, which, for the reasons outlined above, are principally answered from a TEN-T and Marco Polo perspective. Additional evidence and information from other funding programmes/ instruments is presented where appropriate.

The variation in the availability and quality of the evidence base also extends to the documentary evidence. There are very few independent project and / or programme evaluations (as opposed to project reports which were undertaken to allow for project budgets and outputs to be ‘signed off’). ICF was given access to final TEN-T and Marco Polo project reports but these concentrate primarily on compliance of financial support conditions (e.g. achievement of agreed activities and outputs).

To compensate for the limitations in the documentary evidence, ICF consulted widely, including with project beneficiaries and wider stakeholders (see Section 3). Moreover, an additional round of consultations was launched to elicit views from national Chambers of Commerce, Member State Transport and Trade/Commerce Attaches (with the request that it is also shared with the relevant Ministries in the Member State) and European trade/ industry associations (with the request that it is also shared with their members).

51 The focus on TEN-T and Marco Polo projects partly reflected an incomplete picture of MoS project activity at the time of the reference project selection.


April, 2017 36

Overall, ICF believes that the best available evidence and information has been assembled and deployed in tackling the evaluation questions. For some questions this is, nonetheless insufficient information to support a comprehensive response. The implications for the research findings and their robustness are set out below.

Table 8. Research limitations and implications

Limitation Implication for research and robustness of findings

Mitigation

Limited evaluative material (as opposed to output based reports) at the programme level

The formal project reports are not independent evaluations and are largely confined to documenting completion of outputs and budgets. This has made it necessary to rely more on stakeholder perspectives and qualitative assessments. The central weakness is a lack of detailed and consistent evidence of impacts.

ICF has consulted widely and used other documentation and literature (including academic and research papers) where available and triangulated information sources. The academic and research literature on this topic is, however, relatively thin and/or outdated. Supporting evidence is stronger for TEN-T and Marco Polo projects (22 of the 25 reference projects) but weaker for Interreg and ENPI projects.

Lack of, or dispersed, coordinating units/ persons (outside of TEN-T/ Marco Polo)

Whereas TEN-T and Marco Polo projects have had an explicit MoS focus this is not true of other funding programmes that have not had the same level of MoS focus or central coordination, but where projects have used the MoS concept. Evaluation findings are therefore weaker for projects and funding programmes outside of TEN-T and Marco Polo (and there were fewer reference projects – a deliberate choice).

ICF used its professional network to identify relevant EC officials and other stakeholders to consult outside TEN-T and Marco Polo. Consultations were completed with DG NEAR and DG REGIO. However, due to the lack of central coordination of MoS projects within the relevant funding programmes linked to these DGs, these consultations were not able to provide a complete picture of MoS activity.

Evolution of MoS with changing focus and objectives

The MoS evolution, which reflected changing policy priorities over a 12 year cycle, provides a challenge for evaluators seeking to present an overview. By example, modal shift was a key original point focus of MoS and an explicit objective in Marco Polo.

Projects were selected – in association with DG Move and INEA – to reflect different funding regimes, policy objectives and timescales. This has supported development of answers at the fund level. For MoS overall there are some higher level


April, 2017 37

Limitation Implication for research and robustness of findings

Mitigation

Although modal shift and reducing road congestion remain higher level objectives, the focus of MoS has changed over timeto cover other issues.

objectives that have remained constant and it is possible to comment on these, subject to qualification.

Securing a definitive list of MoS projects

The starting point for most evaluations is a definitive list of projects and budget/spend. This was possible for TEN-T and Marco Polo but not for other funds, including for projects that are MoS in spirit but not in name. It proved challenging to have a definitive list of MoS projects. This does not diminish the results of the evaluation, but is relevant to the question that relates to the stocktaking of MoS activity.

Extensive searches (KEEP, TRIP databases) were made and EC officials consulted. The evaluation generated the most complete list of MoS projects to date.

Project leads or other project staff for a small number of projects had changed organisation/ employer

Consulting with other project staff that was less involved in the project may lead to incomplete information. As this was only the case in a small number of projects it has not had any major impacts on the overall robustness ofthe findings.

Alternative project staff were identified and asked for interviews. Successors were also asked to provide additional contacts or information in case they could not respond to all questions.

MoS related activities are funded through a diverse set of funding programmes/ instruments with varying objectives and separate legal and financial frameworks

This means that it is very difficult, and probably undesirable, to provide an overall assessment of the MoS concept.

The analysis is largely presented per funding programme/ instrument (with a focus on the TEN-T and Marco Polo programmes). In the summary and conclusions a MoS overview has been presented wherever possible.


April, 2017 38

4 Overview of Motorways of the Sea funding programmes, project activity and state of play

4.1 Introduction

EU funding is provided for the development and implementation of Motorways of the Sea on the basis that the costs associated with the start-up and development of MoS routes can be prohibitive. The funding is channelled through various programmes and instruments, each of which has its own specificities and conditions. MoS has been most directly and explicitly supported through TEN-T and Marco Polo, but has also been supported through other funding sources of the EU Structural Funds, the Cohesion Fund, the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI), the Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA) and the Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development.

A description and analysis of the project activity within each of the funding programmes that have supported MoS is provided below. This directly addresses the ’state of play’ evaluation questions, namely:

(EQ 1.1) Which types of project have been funded (developing port capacity, accessibility, intermodal connections, environmental performance, wider benefit actions etc.)? Non-funded proposals (the reasons why, % of successful/non-successful proposals) will also be investigated

(EQ1.2) Which financial sources (TEN-T, Marco Polo, EU structural funds, European Investment Bank funding, state aid, private funding) have been used?

(EQ 1.2B) Which financial instruments (grants, loans, equity, loan guarantees) have been used?

(EQ 1.3) Who have been the beneficiaries of funding (e.g. port authorities, port operators, ship owners, ship operators, land carriers, freight forwarders and shippers)?

The literature and data for the different programmes is uneven. Greater detail is available for TEN-T and Marco Polo, but less for Interreg, ENPI, IPA and FP RTD (where there is no central coordination of MoS activities and spending). Information and data are not presented consistently in source materials for the different funding programmes. A summary table is provided at the end of this chapter to provide an overview of MoS overall.

4.2 TEN-T programme

Formally integrated as one of 30 priority projects (PP21) in TEN-T guidelines in 2004.

51 projects funded between 2004 and 2013.

Total cost of co-funded projects - €15.4m (2004-2006) and €1,456.5m (2007-2013) (total of €1,471.9m)

Total EU contribution - €7.3m (2004-2006) and €345.7m (2007-2013) (total of €353.1m52)

Since 2014 TEN-T MoS actions are financed through the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF)

52 The sum of 2004-2006 and 2007-2013 does not add up to the total due to rounding.


April, 2017 39

The Trans-European transport network (TEN-T) policy has been in development since the mid-1980s, with the first Community guidelines being adopted in 1996.

Regulations governing EC/ EU funding from the TEN-T budget were adopted for the periods 1995–1999, 2000–2006 and 2007–2013. In addition to the TEN-T budget, other EU funds - most notably the Cohesion Fund and the ERDF – have also contributed significantly to developing the TEN-T.

The overall budget for the TEN-T programme for 2007-2013 was around €8 billion (of which €6.41 billion to €6.81 billion would be available for grants on the basis of the multi-annual work programme).

The indicative budget for MoS action within the framework of the multi-annual work programme for the period 2007-2013 was €310 million53. The actual budget, as specified in the Multi-Annual Calls for Proposals, amounts to €365 million. This reflects a substantially increased budget in 2013 – from an indicative budget of €25 million for the 2012 call to €80 million for the 2013 call.

Table 9 shows the total number of projects funded for the period 2001-2013, together with their total project cost (actual) and the actual TEN-T contribution. The actual TEN-T contribution presented in the table below is higher than the budget specified in the Multi-Annual Calls for Proposals (2007-2013), which in part can be explained by the fact that the selected projects rarely matched the budget specified in the Multi-Annual Calls for Proposals (ranging from 68% to 212% of the budget – see Table 15). The table below also includes projects funded between 2004 and 2006, with a TEN-T contribution of €7.3 million.

Table 9. MoS projects from 2001–2013

Year Number of projects

Total project cost EU contribution

2001 - - -

2002 - - -

2003 - - -

2004 1 2.4 1.2

2005 3 8.3 4.1

2006 2 4.7 2.0

2007 - - -

2008 3 51.2 10.3

2009 1 118.8 17.0

2010 8 330.4 61.8

2011 7 164.8 38.9

53 Commission Decision C(2007)2158 of 23.05.2007 establishing the draft multi-annual work programme for grants in the field of trans-European Transport network (TEN-T) for the period 2007-2013 http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/maritime/motorways_sea/doc/mos_project_2007_2013_com_2007_2158_en.pdf


April, 2017 40

Year Number of projects

Total project cost EU contribution

2012 13 591.8 169.3

2013 13 199.5 48.4

Total 51 1,471.9 353.1 Source: ICF analysis, based on MoS Helpdesk data – correct as of December 2014. The total may not be equal to the sum of individual years as a result of rounding. The project costs are mostly actual costs but there were some projects that were not completed at the time the data were provided by INEA, which means that the figures also include estimates of foreseen costs.

Table 9 shows that from 2001 to 2013:

51 MoS projects were funded under the TEN-T programme. The total cost of these projects was almost €1.5 billion, with an EU contribution of €353 million.

The first MoS project – PORTMOS - Integration of the Portuguese Ports and Maritime System in the Motorways of the Sea – was funded in 2004.

More than 80% of the projects were funded between 2010 and 2013. Projects funded through the 2012 and 2013 calls account for more than half (51%) of the MoS projects.

The small number of projects funded in the first few years (2004-2007) can, in part, be explained by the fact that concept of MoS suffered from a lack of clarity among the stakeholders in the sector up to 200754. Not many were clear about what the concept entailed or what sort of activities would form part of a "Motorways of the Sea" project55. Clarity around the MoS concept was, however, progressively improved in subsequent years.

4.2.1 Types of projects funded

The categories of items related to MoS actions which can receive financial support under the TEN-T Regulation are defined in Art. 12a of the TEN-T Guidelines and comprise:

Infrastructure: port infrastructure, infrastructure for direct land and sea access, waterway and canal infrastructure (Art. 12a (3) of the TEN-T Guidelines).

Facilities: electronic logistics management systems, safety, security, administrative and customs facilities, facilities for ice-breaking and dredging operations (Art. 12a (2) of the TEN-T Guidelines).

In practice, this can include:

Facilities and infrastructure open to all users on a non-discriminatory basis56. These can include elements such as:

54 See, for example, Valente de Oliveira, l., 2008, Annual Activity Report 2007-2008 (p. 3); and European Parliament, 2014, Improving the Concept of ‘Motorways of the Sea’ 55 Valente de Oliveira, l., 2008, Annual Activity Report 2007-2008 (p. 20) 56 As concerns complementary national or regional funding for such infrastructures, the following applies: as these infrastructure are generally referred to as ‘public’ or ‘general’’, investments in those are normally considered by the Commission as general measures, being expenditures incurred by the State in the framework of its responsibilities for planning and developing a transport system in the interests of the general public. For this, the infrastructure must de jure and de facto be open to all users, actual or potential, in accordance with Community legislation. However, the characteristics of a specific case may show that such


April, 2017 41

− dykes, breakwaters, locks and other high water protection measures,

− lights, buoys, beacons; floating pontoon ramps in tidal areas,

− infrastructure for utilities up to the terminal site,

− direct land and sea access to port, including short connecting links to the national transport networks or to the TEN-T network and connections to intermodal centres with a high potential of concentrating freight on the MoS,

− port facilities, e.g. equipment available to all users,

− electronic logistics management systems,

− information systems, including traffic management (VTMIS) and electronic reporting systems,

− safety and security measures,

− administration and customs,

− waterways and canals linking two European Motorways of the Sea or two sections thereof, substantially shortening sea routes. These measures for waterways and canals can include a number of relevant facilities and infrastructure.

Ways of ensuring year-round navigability

− facilities for dredging; and

− ice breakers and facilities for icebreaking for winter access.

In addition, the following costs are eligible:

Start-up aid related to capital costs: in line with the dual nature of MoS as mixed infrastructure/services projects, start-up aid for capital investment within the project may be granted for a maximum period of two years in accordance with Art. 12a (5) of the TEN Guidelines. The maximum funding rate was initially limited to 20% but was increased to 30% following the revision to the state aid rules. The start-up aid may not lead to distortions of competition in the relevant markets contrary to the common interest.

Actions which have wider benefits and are not linked to specific ports: such as making available facilities for icebreaking and dredging operations, as well as information systems, including traffic management and electronic reporting systems.

Studies or study parts of projects: priority will be given to those carried out at a regional scale leading to the identification or formulation of potential Motorways of the Sea actions to be proposed for TEN-T, or TEN-T and Marco Polo support.

Since the introduction of the MoS concept more than half (59%) of the funded projects have been studies. One reason for this is that, according to the TEN-T regulation, studies are eligible for EU financing of up to 50%. Studies are also the basis for subsequent infrastructure investment (being used to examine feasibility, demand etc.). Examples of cases where studies have been translated into infrastructure investments are presented in Section 5.5.1.

infrastructure benefits a specific undertaking in its commercial activities In that case, State aid and public procurement rules under EU law may apply. Source: COM (2001) 35 final, 13.2.2001 (http://www.cc.cec/sg_vista/cgi-bin/repository/getdoc/COMM_PDF_COM_2001_0035_F_EN_ACTE.pdf)


April, 2017 42

Around a fifth of the projects (9 projects or 18%) have taken the form of implementation projects (i.e. works - investment in infrastructure and facilities). The remainder have been mixed projects that include elements of both studies and works.

Figure 7. TEN-T project distribution by MoS action

Source: ICF analysis, based on MoS Help Desk project fiches

Projects can be further categorised according to the type of activities undertaken within the various actions. For example, the annual reports of the EU MoS coordinator57 provide the following breakdown of activities:

Integrative information systems – e.g. MIELE and MOS4MOS

Intermodal connections with hinterland of ports – e.g. Karlskrona-Gdynia, Trelleborg-Rostock, Gijon-Nantes, London-Bilbao and Zeebrugge –Esbjerg.

Regional cooperation – e.g. Aarhus-Gothenburg and Tallin (common information structure), North Adriatic platform (common corporate image), Adriamos

Safety and environmental protection – e.g. LNG Rotterdam-Gothenburg, COSTA

Knowledge networks – e.g. TrainMoS

A European Parliament report58 on MoS presented an analysis of project activity on the basis of the following project activities:

Implementation policy: Master plans and operative and policy supporting frameworks.

Transport link: SSS connections between two ports and hinterland connections.

Port services: Maritime Single Windows, traffic management, port data.

Sustainability: Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) bunker facilities and emission reduction.

IT systems: Design, optimisation and implementation of IT systems related to port services.

57 See, for example, the 2011/12 Annual Report of the Coordinator: Priority Project 21 Luis Valente de Oliveira 58 European Parliament (2014), Improving the Concept of ‘Motorways of the Sea’


April, 2017 43

Other: Year-round accessibility, icebreaking resources and education.

In combination, these sources suggest the distribution of activities shown in Figure 8. Not all projects fit neatly into these activity types; individual projects may involve more than one type of activity. In these cases, ICF has identified the category that best reflect the main activities of the project.

Figure 8. Projects by type of activities


Figure 8 shows that:

In recent years the emphasis has been on safety and environmental protection. This reflects the increasing focus in recent calls for proposals, particularly from 2012, to improve the environmental performance and safety of the MoS network. These projects account for nearly two fifths of all MoS TEN-T projects.

Master planning projects were implemented during the early years of the Motorways of the Sea priority project. These helped to set the framework for future calls for proposals.

Transport link projects have featured in all years since 2008 and accounted for all MoS TEN-T projects in 2008 and 2009. This, to a considerable extent, reflects the focus of the 2009 call which particularly emphasised the development of facilities and infrastructure.

The integration of information systems and efficient communication procedures have particularly been promoted since the 2010 call for proposals and this is reflected in the projects selected for funding. Projects involving integrative information systems account for around a fifth of all projects and featured heavily in the 2010 call, and to a lesser extent, the 2012 call.

The projects associated with each of the activity types are presented in Table 10. Further detail on the TEN-T projects (including funding and geographical scope) is provided in Annex 4.


April, 2017 44

Table 10. Typology of project activities

Project typology Project title (Year)

Master planning - Master plans to support MoS development

4 projects

Total project costs: €10.0m (incl. €4.9m EU contribution)

Eastern Mediterranean Motorways of the Sea Master Plan (2005)

Master Plan MOS in the Baltic Sea (2005)

Western Europe Sea Transport & Motorways of the Sea (WEST-MOS) (2005)

West Med corridors (2006)

Transport link - SSS connections between two ports and hinterland connections, port infrastructure and facilities

11 projects

Total project costs: €469.4 (incl. €89.6 EU contribution)

Motorway of the Sea - High Quality Rail and Intermodal Nordic Corridor Konigslinie (2008)

Motorways of the Sea projects in the Baltic Sea Area Klaipéda-Karlshamn link (2008)

Motorways of the Sea Esbjerg – Zeebrugge (2008)

Baltic Link Gdynia-Karlskrona (2009)

Motorway of the Sea Rostock – Gedser (2010)

IBUK – Intermodal Corridor (2011)

TWIN-PORT (2012)

Kvarken Multimodal Link - Midway Alignment of the Bothnian Corridor (2012)

BRIDGE - Building the Resilience of International & Dependent Gateways in Europe (2013)

ATLANTICA OPTIMOS (2013)

Sustainable Trelleborg-Swinousjcie MoS services based on upgrading port infrastructure, developing intermodal transport and integrating hinterland corridors (2013)

Information systems - design, optimisation and implementation of ICT systems related to port services, MSW, traffic management, port data

11 projects


PORTMOS - Integration of the Portuguese Ports and Maritime System in the Motorways of the Sea (2004)

Master Plan Studies for development of the Baltic Sea Information Motorway (2006)

MoS 24 - ICT based Co-modality Promotion Center for integrating PP24 into Mediterranean MoS (2010)

MIELE (2010)

ITS Adriatic multi-port gateway (2010)

Monitoring and Operation Services for Motorways of the Sea (MOS4MOS) (2010)

MonaLisa (2010)

Business to Motorways of the Sea (2012)

WiderMoS (2012)

MONALISA 2.0 (2012)

Advanced National Networks for Administrations


April, 2017 45


(AnNa) (2012)

Regional cooperation

3 projects


Adriatic Motorways of the Sea (ADRIAMOS) (2011)

Development of North Adriatic ports multimodal connections and their efficient integration into the Core Network (NAPA STUDIES) (2013)

The Baltic Sea Hub and Spokes Project (2010)

Safety and environmental protection – LNG infrastructure, bunker facilities, emission reduction, safety measures (e.g. hydrographical surveys), environmental upgrades of ships/vessels, winter navigation

20 projects

Total project costs: €642.3 (incl. €165.5 EU contribution)

LNG infrastructure of filling stations and deployment in ships (2010)

LNG in Baltic Sea Ports (2011)

COSTA (2011)

Green Bridge on Nordic Corridor (2011)

Make a difference (2011)

PILOT SCRUBBER – New Generation Lightweight Pilot Scrubber Solution installed on a Ro-Ro Ship operating on the Motorway of the Baltic Sea (2012)

Sustainable Traffic Machines - On the way to greener shipping (2012)

Methanol: The marine fuel of the future (2012)

SEAGAS (2012)

LNG Rotterdam Gothenburg (2012)

LNG Bunkering Infrastructure Solution and Pilot actions for Ships operating on the Motorway of the Baltic Sea (2012)

Winter Navigation Motorways of the Sea (WINMOS) (2012)

LNG in Baltic Sea Ports II (2013)

Pilot Implementation of a LNG-Propulsion System on a MoS Test Track in the Environmental Model Region 'Wadden Sea' (2013)

Into the future - Baltic So2lution (2013)

Costa II East - Poseidon Med (2013)

Channel LNG (2013)

Sustainable Traffic Machines II – The green link between Scandinavia and Continental Europe (2013)

Sustainable Motorway of the Sea Ghent-Gothenburg through environmental upgrade and compliance while maintaining competitiveness of short sea shipping (2013)

Sustainable Motorway of the Sea Immingham-Gothenburg through environmental upgrade and compliance while maintaining competitiveness of short sea shipping (2013)


April, 2017 46


Training/ knowledge network – creation of knowledge networks, education and training

2 projects


TrainMoS (2011)

TRAINMOS II (2013)


4.2.2 Financial sources and instruments used

TEN-T MoS projects have been funded through varying degrees of grant funding. The maximum co-funding rates for projects under the TEN-T Motorways of the Sea calls have ranged from 20% (works) to 50% (studies). Project beneficiaries have used their own funding to cover the remaining project costs.

4.2.3 Beneficiaries of funding

Port authorities / operators, maritime transport operators / shipping companies and state level ministries, administration and agencies have been involved in a large proportion of TEN-T MoS projects. Road and rail transport operators have been involved in very few projects (all of which were studies). Academic and research centres have also had limited involvement in the TEN-T MoS projects. The appropriateness of the beneficiaries involved is discussed in section 5.1.8.

Figure 9. Beneficiaries and implementing bodies

Source: ICF analysis, based on INEA data


April, 2017 47

4.2.4 Project proposals and success rates

Table 11 provides an overview of the number of eligible proposals submitted for the calls and the number of proposals selected. The data are restricted to the period 2009-2013 (similar data on proposals for previous years were not available).

Table 11. MoS annual budget and eligible projects

Year Number of eligible projects

Budget available (€ million)

Value requested by eligible projects (€ million)

Ratio of funding requested / budget available

Number of selected projects (% of total eligible projects)

Value (€m) of selected projects (% of budget available)

2009 6 30 83.0 2.8 1 (17%)

17.1 (57%)

2010 14 85 185.3 2.2 8 (57%)

84.9 (100%)

2011 12 70 101.5 1.5 7 (58%)

47.8 (68%)

2012 22 80 212.7 2.7 13 (59%)

169.4 (212%)

2013 17 80 88.4 1.1 15 (88%)

78.1 (98%)

Total 71 345 670.9 1.9 44 (62%)

397.3 (115%)

Source: NB. The annual budget for the 2008 call was €20 million. ICF has not been able to access data on the applications received and recommended for funding.

In the five year period between 2009 and 2013, a total of 71 eligible applications were made in response to the Multi-Annual Motorways of the Sea (MoS) Calls for Proposals. The corresponding TEN-T budget allocation over this period was €345 million. This is nearly half of the €671 million requested by the eligible projects.

Whilst the indicative budget has remained at a similar level since 2010, the total value of the selected projects has varied significantly over this period (from €48 million to €169 million). The awarded or allocated budget has generally been lower than the indicative budget. The only exception was 2012 when the value of selected projects recommended by TEN-T was more than double that of the indicative budget. This reflects the fact that the annual budget allocation to MoS projects is made on an indicative basis and the EC has the right to make alterations if required. Funding from other parts of TEN-T budget would have been used to cover the additional demand for MoS in 2012.

The total number of eligible applications for MoS TEN-T funding has varied from year to year. For the five year period 2009-2013, 62% of eligible projects were recommended for funding (of the 44 projects that were recommended for funding 42 were taken forward). However, there are two years that diverge substantially from this general average – in 2013 almost 90% of the eligible projects were successful, whilst in 2009 only one of six projects was recommended for funding.


April, 2017 48

Common reasons cited by the Evaluation Panel for rejecting proposals were a lack of coherence and technical specification, an insufficient regional dimension and omissions of key ports/regions. In addition, many rejected proposals were only weakly connected to established maritime links and did not provide enough analysis on potential modal shifts. This issue was particularly prevalent between in the 2009, 2010 and 2011 TEN-T calls for proposals.

4.3 Marco Polo programme

Overall budget of €102m (Marco Polo I, 2003-2006) and €435.5 m (Marco Polo II, 2007-2013).

In 2006 Motorways of the Sea was introduced as a specific action in Marco Polo II (2007-2013).

Four projects59 have been co-financed under the Motorways of the Sea action (2007-2013).

The approved MoS projects were awarded a maximum EU contribution of nearly €20m (2007-2013).

The Marco Polo programme was discontinued in 2014.

The first Marco Polo programme (Marco Polo I) had a budget of €102 million. The second (Marco Polo II), covering the period 2007-2013, had a budget of €435.5 million.

The eligibility criteria for Motorways of the Sea actions can be summarised as follows:

The envisaged route, from which transport was to be shifted, had to involve the territory of at least two EU Member States/other fully participating countries or the territory of at least one EU Member State/fully participating country and a close third country. Modal shift had to take place on the territory of at least one EU Member State or a fully participating country.

Only projects that involved category A ports, as defined in Article 12(2) of Decision No 661/2010/EU (i.e. ports with a total annual traffic volume of not less than 1.5 million tonnes of freight or 200.000 passengers) were eligible for funding.

The action had to achieve its objectives within a period of a minimum of 36 months and a maximum of 60 months.

The minimum modal shift had to be an average of 200 million tonne-kilometres, or its volumetric equivalent, per year.

Actions were not allowed to lead to distortions of competition in the relevant markets, in particular between transport modes alternative to road transport alone or within each mode, contrary to the common interest.

Between 2007 and 2013, the MoS action funded four projects which were awarded a maximum EU contribution of €19.5 million (see table below). This represents nearly 4.5% of the total Marco Polo II funding. Further detail on the four projects (including timing and funding) is presented in Annex 4.

59 One of these projects start date was delayed by one year – DG COMP decision in relation to state aid was taken only in September 2015. The project started in November 2015 instead of October 2014.


April, 2017 49

Table 12. Marco Polo II projects

Name of project

Description

Ro-Ro Past France

September 2007 - December 2011

New regular Ro-Ro service between Zeebrugge (BE) and Bilbao (ES). The objective of this project was to provide a Motorway of the Sea alternative for freight to relieve pressure on the congested international road transit corridor across France.

FRES MOS

July 2010 – June 2014

Development of a Ro-Pax maritime service between the port of Gijon (ES) and the port of St. Nazaire (FR), predominately for accompanied trailers. The objective for the project was to transfer 103,000 truck units from the heavily congested roads between Spain and France to sea routes.

Gulfstream.MOS

April 2011 – March 2015

Providing a SSS Ro-Pax service between Bilbao and Santander (ES) and Portsmouth (UK). The objective of this project was to provide an enhanced service between the north of Spain and the south of England, shifting the road transit of goods via France to the new motorway of the sea via the Atlantic Arc. The increase of both the frequency of service and the transport capacity was intended to provide hauliers and logistic organisations with an alternative to the road option through France.

Atlantica

November 2015 (ongoing)

Developing a Ro-Ro service between the port of Vigo (ES) and the port of Nantes-St. Nazaire (FR). The project aims to provide a high frequency service for high volumes of cargo.

*Assuming maximum EU contribution being paid for Atlantica.

The projects have been implemented over a period of between four (FRES MOS and Gulfstream.MOS) and five years (Ro-Ro Past France). The Atlantica project started in November 2015 and is expected to be implemented over four years.

4.3.1 Types of projects funded

Under Motorways of the Sea action two types of activities could be supported:

start-up aid for transport services; and

ancillary infrastructures – i.e. the necessary and sufficient infrastructure to achieve the goals of the activity60.

Marco Polo MoS funding has predominately been used to provide start-up aid for transport services. As such, Marco Polo II MoS actions are generally regarded as an important complement of TEN-T, which focuses on infrastructure and facilities61.

In addition to the above, projects funded under the other actions may also have supported the Motorways of the Sea objectives to a greater or lesser extent. For example, the modal shift action and the Motorways of the Sea action are very similar

60 After 2009 all action types other than common learning actions could receive finance for ancillary infrastructure (up to 20 per cent of the total eligible costs of the action). Ancillary infrastructure was defined as adjustments to existing infrastructures that are necessary for carrying out the action but are not the main aim of the project, i.e. transport services. 61 See, for example, http://ec.europa.eu/transport/marcopolo/in-action/motorways-of-the-sea/index_en.htm [accessed 9.3.2015]


April, 2017 50

in terms of their overall objective, however, they also have some important differences. For example, the eligibility threshold (in terms of modal shift) is significantly higher for the Motorways of the Sea action (an average of 200 million tonne-kilometres, or its volumetric equivalent, per year compared with 60 million tonne-kilometres per year for the modal shift action). The period during which project objectives should be achieved is longer for the Motorways of the Sea action projects – up to 60 months compared to 36 months for the modal shift action.

According to INEA, such differences in eligibility criteria may have resulted in some projects applying to the modal shift action rather than the Motorways of the Sea action. To illustrate, the Mediterranean modal shift projects detailed below can be seen to be connected to MoS:

Euro Stars (modal shift) - The expansion of maritime services for trailers in the Western Mediterranean. Upgraded SSS services between Italy, Spain, Tunisia, and Malta for intermodal freight (trailer and other rolling Cargo); introduction of two newly-built car ferries.

MARIS (modal shift) - Maritime and Rail Italy-Spain Connection. Expansion of maritime service for trailers between Livorno and Valencia (+275% in TEU capacity), and introduction of rail/sea intermodal service Piacenza – Valencia for containers, with 2 block trains per week.

A.T.T.A.C (modal shift) - Alternative To The Alps Crossing Short sea shipping service between Civitavecchia (Central Italy) and Toulon (Southern France) for the transport of trailers, semi-trailers and other rolling cargo including oversized and overweight trailers. The service offers a fast, regular and direct maritime service at fixed-day departures three times a week.

Marocco Seaways (modal shift) – Short sea shipping service that connects the ports of Genoa (Italy), Barcelona (Spain) and Tangiers (Morocco) with weekly departure on fixed days. The service will be carried out through the use of a roll-on roll-off mixed goods passenger type ship with wide cargo capacity.

According to the evaluation of the Marco Polo programme (2003-2010)62, the majority of projects funded under the Marco Polo programme had a modal shift objective. There were 114 projects with modal shift objectives by mid-December 2010, of which 87% were funded under the modal shift action. However, not all projects with a modal shift objective concerned short sea shipping. Projects involving short sea shipping accounted for around a third of the funded projects.

Notwithstanding the modal shift objective of many other Marco Polo projects, they have not been included in the list of MoS projects. This is because there is an explicit MoS action within the Marco Polo programme.

4.3.2 Financial sources and instruments used

The EU contribution for Marco Polo MoS projects was determined on the basis of the modal shift achieved (up to a maximum of 35% of the eligible costs). State aid was also granted to two Marco Polo MoS projects (FRES MOS and Atlantica). For FRES MOS, the Commission approved state aid of €30 million (shared equally between France and Spain) or up to 35% of the eligible costs within the first four years of its operation. As a result of the state aid, the project ultimately did not benefit from any Marco Polo funding. For the Atlantica project, which is still ongoing, the state aid is expected to amount to €23.8 million (shared equally between France and Spain). Project beneficiaries have used their own funding to cover the remaining project costs.

62 European Commission (2011), Evaluation of the Marco Polo Programme 2003-2010


April, 2017 51

4.3.3 Beneficiaries of funding

The companies benefitting from the Marco Polo II projects have all been maritime or multimodal transport operators. The projects and their beneficiaries are:

Ro-Ro Past France - Spliethoff's Bevrachtingskantoor (NL), Transfennica Iberia (ES), Transfennica Belgium (BE), Oy Transfennica (FI)

FRES MOS - GLD Atlantique (FR)63

Gulfstream.MoS - Brittany Ferries (FR)

Atlantica - Grupo Logistica Suardiaz (ES)

4.3.4 Project proposals and success rates

The success rate of Motorways of the sea actions submitted under the Marco Polo programmes is difficult to measure. Information on unsuccessful proposals is not publicly available since unsuccessful proposals were not published in the awarding Decisions. An exception was made for the Call 2010 awarding Decision where unsuccessful proposals were also published64 (available on the Marco Polo programme website). Six project proposals were submitted under the MoS action (the total number of submissions across all Marco Polo actions was 101). Only one of the MoS project proposals was selected for funding. Three of the rejected project proposals passed the total score threshold but they did not reach the threshold for at least one of individual evaluation criteria. One of the project proposals did not pass the total score threshold, whilst another proposal did not meet the selection criteria. An amended version of one of the unsuccessful proposals was re-submitted by another maritime transport operator in the 2013 call (Atlantica).

4.4 Projects funded through other funding sources

Motorways of the Sea is not an explicit priority/ action within other funding programmes/ instruments, such as the EU Structural Funds (ERDF), the Cohesion Fund, ENPI, IPA and the Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development. This also implies that there is no definitive list of ‘MoS’ projects funded through these programmes/ instruments. The projects presented below have been identified from various sources and using the methodology explained in section 3.

4.4.1 EU Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund

The operational programmes for EU Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund65 were used to support the development of the TEN-T network, including the Motorways of the Sea priority. The Community Strategic Guidelines (CSG) for 2007-2013 – which served as a thematic reference for the programmes – included the development of Motorways of the Sea (and short-sea shipping) as a priority for transport infrastructure investment66.

63 Grimaldi Logistica was initially involved in the FRES MOS project but later withdrew from the partnership. 64 http://ec.europa.eu/transport/marcopolo/files/about/in-law/call10_projects_en.pdf 65 The ERDF, ESF and the Cohesion Fund (as well as the EAFRD and EMFF) are since 2014 covered under European Structural and Investment Funds (the ESI Funds). 66 European Commission (2005), Cohesion Policy in Support of Growth and Jobs: Community Strategic Guidelines, 2007-2013, COM(2005) 0299


April, 2017 52

Support from the EU Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund needed to complement support from the TEN-T and Marco Polo programmes, to ensure that there was no double funding of the same component of the project from different programmes67.

The Structural Funds were made up of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the European Social Fund (ESF). The ERDF supported programmes that addressed regional development, economic change, enhanced competitiveness and territorial cooperation throughout the EU.

The Cohesion Fund contributed to interventions in the field of the environment and Trans-European transport networks. It applied to Member States with a Gross National Income (GNI) of less than 90% of the EU average.

The Motorways of the Sea concept has had support from territorial cooperation funding (i.e. Interreg) and the Cohesion Fund.

ERDF co-finances Interact, a repository for sharing information including a report detailing Cross-border Cooperation Maritime Programmes in the 2007-13 programming period. It is tangentially relevant as the focus is broader than MoS but it highlights some areas of good practice (there is a reference to AdriaticMOS, see Table 13 of this report) and it provides advocacy for policy makers in terms of the possibilities for maritime interventions.

4.4.1.1 Interreg programmes

MoS projects have been funded through the Interreg programme. Interreg aims to stimulate cooperation between EU regions and is financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF).

117 such projects have been identified as being in the ‘spirit’ of the Motorways of the Sea concept. The total budget for these projects is estimated at more than €325 million (including an EU contribution of around €200 million68).

Whilst a large number of projects can be considered to be associated with the objectives of the MoS concept, MoS has only been explicitly referenced in the descriptions of 16 projects. Table 13 below focuses on these 16 projects (further details on the Interreg projects (including timing and funding) are presented in Annex 4).

The Commission provides encouragement through the Community Strategic Guidelines (see 4.4.1) for MoS and for inter-regional cooperation as part of a menu of priorities and eligible actions. This is not the same as the support mechanisms and coordination afforded to TEN-T and Marco Polo II. Discussions with DG Regio made clear that there was no central monitoring of MoS or maritime projects, although there was engagement with specific projects and follow up actions (e.g. the discussion highlighted the establishment of a cross-border Maritime Incident Response Group, established in 2012 and involving UK, Belgium, France and Netherlands).

Table 13. Interreg projects

Name of project Description

REPORTS

June 2002 – October 2004

Actions for the development of the maritime transport in the areas of the Western Mediterranean

67 European Commission (2007), The EU's freight transport agenda: Boosting the efficiency, integration and sustainability of freight transport in Europe. Report on the Motorways of the Sea: State of play and consultation 68 Information on EU funding is not provided for all projects.


April, 2017 53


SSSAA

May 2003 – April 2005

SSS promotion in the Atlantic Arc (SSSAA) proposes to create solutions encouraging cabotage among the regions of the Atlantic Area, through the creation of new lines for navigation and through energising the existing lines.

SUTRANET

February 2004 – March 2007

The overall objective is to establish sustainable and dynamic linkages between new research and development knowledge, concepts and information systems on the one side, and the practical applications and policy decisions on the other side.

BaSIM

September 2004 – December 2007

Baltic Sea information Motorways of the Sea (BaSIM) aims to promote the concept of the Baltic Sea Motorways by creating a sustainable basis for investments in the Baltic Sea region.

NMC II MONS

November 2004 –June 2008

Initiative by the partners of the ongoing Northern Maritime Corridor (NMC) project in order to contribute to transferring cargo from truck to sea based transport and other intermodal transport modes.

PLACA 4S

January 2005 – December 2007

The PLACA 4S project aimed to help the performance of the European transport policy expressed in the second White Paperon Transport 2001-2010, promoting intermodal transport services (i.e. "Motorways of the Sea"). The concept of sustainable SSSproject PLACA 4S is directly linked to the preservation of the environment.

ATMOS

January 2005 – March 2008

Atlantic Area Motorway of the Sea (ATMOS) aims to motivate the implementation of SSS lines, improve knowledge of maritime transport possibilities, increase maritime transport, protect the environment, reduce road congestion, improve security and improve communication.

InterBaltic

December 2005 – December 2007

The intermodality and interoperability in the Baltic Sea area project promotes a shift of cargo transport from road to efficient intermodal sea/ railway corridors.

Baltic Gateway PLUS


Baltic Gateway PLUS was a follow up of the Baltic Gateway project. It aimed at joint actions to implement and finance prioritised transport projects in the South Baltic Sea area. Focus was on infrastructure investments in the hinterland connections, as well as on implementation of intermodal services.

MoS.Med.IA

May 2007 – July 2008

The project MoS.Med.IA analysed the impact of MoS on the urban and territorial systems of the Mediterranean regions in order to provide policy makers with wide-reaching economic and territorial information to evaluate TEN-T MoS projects (PP21).

InTraDE

October 2007 – March 2014

This project developed a framework and methodology for the implementation of an Intelligent Autonomous Vehicle (IAV) into small and medium sized seaports.

StratMoS The project provided input for the Master Plan to be developed bythe North Sea MoS Task Force as well as to EU entities.


April, 2017 54



Demonstration projects were carried out in order to demonstrateactions to be taken by public and private actors to improve theeffectiveness of inter-modal transport, in particular related to hubs and hinterland connections.

Dryport

June 2008 – July 2012

This project aimed to develop, design and set effective hinterlandinter-modal freight transport nodes – ‘dryports’ - which were fully integrated with the Gateway freight handling systems, to adapt apublic concept to a private sector model, and to integratedryports into the EU Motorways of the Sea concept.

PROPOSSE


The general aim of this project was to promote short sea shipping as a real alternative to other means of goods transportation, theexclusive transportation by road between the SMEs of thehinterlands of the ports of Aveiro, Gijón, Le Havre, Poole andCork.

TERCONMED

May 2009 – April 2012

The project TERCONMED aimed to establish the relation between the Shipping Container Terminals and the Short Sea Shipping (SSS) in the Mediterranean sea basin. The project also put the different national and regional administrations in contact with each other in order to identify customs challenges for this type of transport and also provided some recommendations to the public administrations. Furthermore, the project developed a training proposal for the staff taking part in the SSS.

PORTA

June 2010 – May 2013

PORTA aimed to define and implement common strategies andintegrated transport/land use planning procedures for increasingthe role of ports as strategic key actors of the maritime andlogistics development and as a gateway to access the innerregions.

Source: Based on information contained in the following documents: http://www.keep.eu/keep/ [last accessed 2.12.2015]; http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/maritime/studies/doc/mos/mos_2006_06_09_inventaire_interreg.pdf [accessed 9.3.2015]; http://www.northsearegion.eu/ivb/projects/details/&tid=85 [last accessed 20.3.2015]; http://archive.northsearegion.eu/ivb/projects/details/&tid=79&back=yes [last accessed 3.8.2015]

The 16 projects described above benefitted from some €21.2 million of ERDF funding. The total cost of the projects was more than €40 million. Interreg III (2000-2006) in particular helped to draw attention to the Motorways of the Sea concept and allowed key stakeholders to develop common interests and institutional coherence69.

Types of projects funded

The 16 projects listed in Table 13 focused on setting up networks and working groups, as well as providing analysis and developing joint tools, strategies and frameworks to support the development and implementation of MoS.

Interreg projects have, in a few cases, supported applications for funding through the TEN-T and Marco Polo programmes. For example, the results of the Baltic Sea

69 European Commission (2006), Motorways of the Sea - Modernising European short sea shipping links


April, 2017 55

Gateway+ project contributed to the submission of four pre-qualified applications for MoS funding under the TEN-T programme.

Financial sources and instruments used

Interreg MoS projects have been part-funded through grants awarded through the cooperation programmes that the projects are funded under. In StratMoS, the Interreg reference project selected for this study, 50% of the funding for the project came from the partners themselves.

Beneficiaries of funding

Most Interreg projects have included port authorities/ operators and regional and local authorities in the project partnerships. Just over half have also included academic and research centres and other businesses. The appropriateness of the beneficiaries involved is discussed in section 5.1.8.

Figure 10. Interreg beneficiaries

Source: ICF analysis, 2016

4.4.1.2 The Cohesion Fund and ERDF

In addition to Interreg (cooperation programmes), the Cohesion Fund and ERDF (through Member States' operational programmes) have also been used to fund MoS projects as a contribution to complementary infrastructure works. Projects have been identified from final reports and research with the reference projects. A few examples are provided below but there may be additional projects:

As a complement to the Baltic Link Gdynia-Karlskrona TEN-T Motorways of the Sea project (2009-EU-21010-P), money from the Cohesion Fund within the Operational Programme ‘Infrastructure and Environment’ has been used to fund various improvements at the Port of Gdynia. These have included the development of the port infrastructure for handling Ro-Ro vessels with rail and road access, as well as the reconstruction of the Swedish and Bulgarian Quays70.

The Economic Growth Operational Programme in Lithuania (co-funded by ERDF and the Cohesion Fund) has been used to co-fund the construction of a new passenger and cargo terminal in Klaipeda, Lithuania (€17.9 million).

70 http://www.port.gdynia.pl/en/european-projects/eu-projects-investment


April, 2017 56

ERDF funding (€5 million) from the Regional Operational Programme in the Friuli Venezia Giulia has been used to upgrade the railway and road access to the terminal in the Port of Venice. This was linked to the ADRIAMOS project.

4.4.2 European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI)

As noted by the 2003 High-Level Group on the trans-European transport network report, Motorways of the Sea have an important role in creating linkages with regions outside the EU. In 2007 the Commission adopted a Communication on the ‘Extension of the major trans-European transport axes to the neighbouring countries’71. This identified Motorways of the Sea as one of five axes that contribute to promoting international exchange, trade and traffic between the European Union and its neighbouring countries. In particular, the Motorways of the Sea were considered to be an important link to the Baltic, Barents, Atlantic (including Outermost Regions72), Mediterranean, Black and the Caspian Sea areas as well as the littoral countries within the sea areas and with an extension through the Suez Canal towards the Red Sea.

The Motorways of the Sea concept has been promoted and supported in neighbourhood countries through the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI)73. The ENPI is the main financial mechanism through which assistance is given to the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) partner countries, as well as Russia. It was introduced in January 2007 and replaced the MEDA instrument that was supporting the Euro-Med Partnership and the TACIS instrument for the Eastern neighbours, as well as other financial mechanisms.

The overarching aim of the ENPI is to create an area of shared values, stability and prosperity, enhanced cooperation and deeper economic and regional integration by covering a wide range of cooperation areas. The 16 ENPI partner countries were (and carry forward under the ENI):

ENPI South - Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Occupied Palestinian Territory, Syria74, Tunisia

71 European Commission (2007), Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament - Extension of the major trans-European transport axes to the neighbouring countries: Guidelines for transport in Europe and neighbouring regions COM(2007) 32 72 Canaries Islands, Azores and Madeira 73 This has, since 2014, been replaced by the European Neighbourhood Instrument (ENI) for the current programme period (2014-20). In addition to the ENPI, financial support is also available through the Neighbourhood Investment Facility (NIF). Launched in 2008, the NIF is a financial instrument used as part of the ENP. Its primary aim is to support key investment infrastructure projects in the transport, energy, social and environment sectors as well as to support private sector development (in particular SMEs) in the Neighbourhood region. It does this by providing funding in the form of grants that complement loans from European Public Finance Institutions, such as the European Investment Bank (EIB), the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), the Council of Europe Development Bank (CEB) and the Nordic Investment Bank (NIB). By the end of 2013, the NIF has supported over 80 projects (€753 million), one of which has the potential to support the Motorways of the Sea concept - EU Neighbourhood Programme Management and Support in the Transport Sector. One of the objectives of this programme is to move towards integrated infrastructure in the Mediterranean by fostering on going European Commission-led initiatives such as the extension of the TEN-T beyond the EU’s borders and the development of the future Trans-Mediterranean Transport Network. There are also opportunities for bi-lateral MoS projects to be supported through the European Maritime Safety Agency (there has been cooperation on other transportation modes, notably aviation between France and Moldova). Studies can also be funded under the Integrated Border Management Eastern Partnership and the Investment Facility for Central Asia (IFCA). 74 EU Cooperation with Syria is currently suspended due to the political situation


April, 2017 57

ENPI East - Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine, (Russia75)

ENPI has been used to provide technical assistance funding to projects under the Transport Corridor Europe-Caucasus-Asia (TRACECA) programme on the Black and Caspian Seas and the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (EUROMED)76.

The first regional MoS programme involving third country neighbours and funded through the ENPI was initiated in the Mediterranean Sea in 2007. It was a programme involving several technical assistance projects in various fields.

Within a policy framework set up by the projects EuroMed Transport I and II (focusing on the transport sector reform process of the Mediterranean partners on the basis of studies, training seminars, workshops, and networking), other projects focused on specific aspects. The MEDA-MOS I and II supported intermodal projects on Motorways of the Sea in the Mediterranean, while SAFEMED I, II and III focused on safety, maritime security and prevention of pollution.

Following the Mediterranean programme, a similar programme was developed for the countries around the Black and Caspian Seas (along the so-called TRACECA corridor). Among the projects funded within the programme, LOGMOS I and II were developed to facilitate the development of the MoS concept in the area. They promoted networking, workshops, training, analysis of bottlenecks and proposal for their solutions as well as a policy support to the partner countries involved. Both had follow-up programmes that continued the work initiated in the masterplan (e.g. new border and custom procedures).

More recently, a number of projects related to the Motorways of the Sea concept have been part of the cross-border cooperation (CBC) element of ENPI. Five such projects have been identified across three CBC programmes:

The Mediterranean Sea Basin CBC programme

The Black Sea Basin CBC programme

The Poland-Belarus-Ukraine CBC programme

The identified ENPI funded projects are described in Table 14. Further detail is provided in Annex 4 (including project timing and funding).

Table 14. ENPI projects


Building the Mediterranean Motorways ofthe Sea (MEDA-MOS I)

2007-2010

The purpose is to promote the Motorways of the Sea concept and the creation of better maritime transport connections in the Mediterranean through support to Ministries, port authorities, customs and relevant private sector stakeholders. Pilot

75 Russia has a special status, as relations with this country are not developed through the ENP, but a strategic partnership covering four “common spaces”. 76 Along with the 28 EU member states, 15 Southern Mediterranean, African and Middle Eastern countries are members of EUROMED or the Union of the Mediterranean: Albania, Algeria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Mauritania, Monaco, Montenegro, Morocco, Palestine, Syria (suspended), Tunisia and Turkey. One of the key priorities of EUROMED is the establishment of maritime and land highways that connect ports and improve rail connections so as to facilitate movement of people and goods.


April, 2017 58


projects implemented in the Western and Eastern Mediterranean

Motorways of the Seas – Black Sea andCaspian Sea

2009-2011

The purpose is to facilitate trade and transport along the corridor Europe-Black Sea region-Caucasus-Central Asia through improved interoperability and multi-modal transport on the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea. The specific objective is to promote the concept of “Motorways of the Sea” in TRACECA countries in order to support efficient intermodal freight transport connecting the Black and Caspian Seas’ neighbouring countries with the enlarged EU territory.

Mediterranean Motorways MediterraneanMotorways of the Seas II (MEDA MOS II)

2010-2013

A follow‐up to the first Mediterranean Motorways of the Seas Project, the specific objectives are to:

Contribute to the overall completion of the physical and economic integration of the Euro‐Mediterranean region

Facilitate an efficient flow of goods between the both sides of the Mediterranean.

Adapt the regulatory framework determining port operations, maritime operations and logistical operation

Logistics Processes and Motorways of the Sea II (LOGMOS II) (this builds on LOGMOS I)

2011-2014

Follow-up of a previous TRACECA EU funded project - Motorways of the Sea (MoS) for Black Sea and Caspian Sea. Specific project objectives are:

Removal of logistical bottlenecks focusing on those which hamper the flow of goods between ports and the hinterland with the objective of enhancing trade at regional and international levels.

Facilitation of efficient flow of goods between Black Sea ports and between Caspian Sea ones, ensuring better interoperable connections from the ports to the hinterland through logistics platforms, and improved maritime services.

Targeting regulatory framework and sector reforms for port, maritime and logistics operations as well as


April, 2017 59


introduction of port environmental management systems.

OPTIMED

December 2013 - December 2015

The objective was, through a virtual logistics platform structured around the ports of Porto Torres (Italy) and Beirut (Lebanon), to promote new opportunities, facilities, tools and skills leading to the enhancement of commercial connections amongst public and private operators in Lebanon, Italy, Spain and France. It involved actions contributing to a more efficient transport and logistics model, characterised by better delivery times of freight and consequently by greater competitiveness. The project has subsequently been taken forward as an implementation project77.

CUSTOM MED

April 2012-September 2014

CUSTOM MED aimed to increase goods circulation among selected Mediterranean ports by developing common customs procedures and increasing the use of ICT technologies. This is, in the long-term, expected to contribute to reducing the length of import-clearing processes reinforcing at the same time the competiveness of the concerned ports.

DABS

June 2013 – September 2014

The general objective of the project was to contribute to the economic development of the area by supporting improved access and better connections of the European and Asian economy among ports within the Danube-Black Sea area.

SETRACON

July 2013 – July 2015

SETRACON’s overarching objective was to improve the tracking of containers through a systematic approach, and to introduce standardised security procedures that will enable the immediate and automatic identification and tracking of sealed containers during its transportation between different container terminals. The project aimed to increase cooperation among port authorities, and identify the business

77 http://ufmsecretariat.org/optimed-implementation-towards-a-new-mediterranean-corridor-from-south-eastern-to-north-western-ports/; http://ufmsecretariat.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/TUD-MoS-Optimed_EN.pdf


April, 2017 60


processes involved in the security procedures of containers in each port.

Restoration of the E40 waterway on theDnieper-Vistula section: from strategy toplanning

December 2013 – November 2015

The aim of the project was to develop a ‘one priority scenario’ of the Dnieper-Vistula waterway restoration which would consider the interests of all stakeholders in the sphere of transport development in border regions. This would then be developed in cooperation with the interested stakeholders. The project also aimed to raise awareness of the priority scenario of the Dnieper-Vistula waterway restoration on a regional, national and European level, laying down institutional foundations for implementation of further activities aimed at restoration.

Source: http://www.keep.eu/keep/; http://www.optimedproject.eu/


The external dimension of Motorways of the Sea has primarily taken the form of identification and provision of technical support to pilot Motorways of the Sea projects. As such, the regional programmes have not directly financed concrete project proposals, but instead used the funding to improve the overall regulatory framework and operational conditions for future Motorways of the Sea opportunities78.


ENPI MoS projects have been funded through grants with varying degrees of co-funding. Projects have been awarded through the programmes that they are associated with. In the two ENPI reference project selected for this study, all project costs were covered by EU funding.


ENPI projects have often involved academic and research centres, specialised consultancy/ engineering companies and port authorities. Transport operators have only been involved in one project. This reflects in part the nature of the projects, which have a focus on adopting good practice, developing new systems and masterplans (e.g. a stage before transport operators might be involved in practical applications). The appropriateness of the beneficiaries involved is further discussed in section 5.1.8.

78 http://inea.ec.europa.eu/en/mos/mos_financial_support/mos__eu_neighbours/mos__eu_neighbours_01.htm


April, 2017 61

Figure 11. ENPI beneficiaries


4.4.3 Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA)

There are examples of the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) being used to support the MoS development. The IPA is the means by which the EU supports reforms in the 'enlargement countries' by providing financial and technical assistance. Four projects funded under the 2007-2013 Adriatic IPA CBC programme were identified (Table 15). Further detail is provided in Annex 4 (including project timing and funding).

Table 15. IPA cross-border projects


AdriaticMos: Developing of Motorways of Sea system in Adriatic region

March 2011 – February 2014

This project is linked to the East Mediterranean Motorways of the Sea Master Plan (EM MoS MP) which was funded under the TEN-T programme. As Croatia did not participate in the original project (it was not a member of European Union) this project was initiated with the goal of developing an Adriatic Motorways of the Sea Master Plan which would be added to the original Master Plan. The objective of the projects was to conduct a detailed analysis of the current state of infrastructure and transport service on the Adriatic, as well to create several scenarios for the development of transport system on the Adriatic by taking into account national strategic developmental documents in each country and on the basis of the real request for transport. Implementation plans were developed For each scenario.

ADRIMOB: Sustainable coast MOBility in the ADRIatic area

February 2011 – January 2014

ADRIMOB identified and developed sustainable mobility. The aims of the project were to: encourage and favour the use of sea transport for passengers both between and along the coasts; to strengthen and integrate existing infrastructure networks, promoting new / complementing links between ports and inland areas; to create new job opportunities; to improve/strengthen the sea routes; and to encourage the relevant public authorities in the Adriatic


April, 2017 62


area to improve the quality level and the effectiveness of safety of navigation and protection of the marine environment in the whole Adriatic basin.

APC: The Adriatic Port Community

March 2011 – June 2013

The aim of the APC project was to develop a system basedon the principle of the “Single Window”, namely a facilitythat allows parties involved in trade and transport to lodgestandardised information and documents with a single entrypoint to fulfil all import, export, and transit-relatedregulatory requirements. The project worked to improve theeffectiveness of the procedures for the clearance of freightflows in port areas, through the design, development andtesting of a support instrument for ship arrival anddeparture, customs clearance and cargo logistic.

INTERMODADRIA: Supporting intermodal transport solutions in the Adriatic area

October 2012 – February 2015

The project objective was the improvement of theintegration of the short sea shipping transport in thelogistics chains crossing the Adriatic sea, and morespecifically the provision of the best environment for theactivation on intermodal rail-sea transport services betweenthe ports and their own hinterlands.

Source: http://www.keep.eu/keep/

The total project value of the IPA projects listed above is around €20.5 million. They received EU funding of some €17.4 million.


The projects funded under the IPA Adriatic Cross-border Cooperation Programme included the development of an Adriatic Motorways of the Sea Master Plan (which could be added to/ complement the East Mediterranean Motorways of the Sea Master Plan TEN-T project). A second project developed a system based on the principle of the ‘Single Window’. The other two projects focused on sustainable mobility and supporting intermodal transport solutions.


IPA MoS projects have been part funded through grants and awarded through the programmes that they are associated with.


Most IPA projects have involved port authorities/operators, multimodal transport operators and academic and research centres. Regional and local authorities, as well as state level ministries/ departments/ agencies have been involved in half the IPA projects. The appropriateness of the beneficiaries involved is discussed in section 5.1.8.


April, 2017 63

Figure 12. IPA beneficiaries


4.4.4 Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development

One of the actions of the 2003 Programme for the Promotion of Short Sea Shipping was to use the 6th Framework Programme for RTD79 to develop:

innovations in ship design (in particular fast Ro-Ro ships and new types of fast lo-lo ships but also other ship options);

innovations in port technologies;

dedicated equipment and technologies for Short Sea Shipping;

new technological solutions for administrative procedures.

Subsequent research framework programmes (FP7 and Horizon 2020) also tackle upstream research and innovation supporting clean shipping and improving the efficiency of short sea and inland shipping. In this respect EU research framework programmes contribute to the upstream end of the innovation pipeline and are very relevant to the activities of Motorways of the Sea which concern downstream innovation and the deployment of innovative technologies.

Several projects supported through the RTD Framework Programmes link closely with the MoS concept. Using the project descriptions presented on the CORDIS Projects and Results Service and the Transport Research & Innovation Portal (TRIP), 13 projects, supported by FP5, FP6 and FP7, which most closely link to the MoS objectives (see section 3.1 for further detail on the methodology) were identified. These 13 projects are summarised below; further details (including project timing and funding) are provided in Annex 4.

Table 16. Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development projects


79 The series of RTD Framework Programmes have been the EU's main instrument to support funding for European research and Innovation. Horizon 2020 is the most recent programme operating from 2014 to 2020: https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/


April, 2017 64


REALISE: Regional Action for LogisticalIntegration of Shipping across Europe

October 2002 – October 2005 (FP5)

REALISE supported the development of common concepts and strategies, including the development and implementation of appropriate technologies across Europe to facilitate the development of short sea shipping.

INTEGRATION: Integration of Sea LandTechnologies for an Efficient IntermodalDoor to Door Transport

August 2002 – July 2005 (FP5)

The strategic aim of INTEGRATION was to develop demonstrable optimised concepts and integrate new technologies to improve multimodal freight transport and test them in real demo sites, and to reinforce intermodal links with special emphasis on easing, improving and facilitating cargo flows between inland and sea (loading / unloading cargo operations).

LOGBASED: Logistics-based Ship Design

March 2004 – February 2007 (FP6)

The main aim was to develop Ro-Ro vessels and enable the Motorways of the Sea to become more competitive towards their road/rail equivalents competing for transport missions between origin and destination.

ICOMOB: Icebreaker Cooperation on the Motorway of the Baltic Sea

April 2005 -March 2006 (FP6)

The project sought to promote:

the development of winter navigation on the motorway of the Baltic Sea as a part of the TEN-network,

safety by taking account of environment and accident risks related to winter navigation,

European competitiveness by improving, developing and ensuring connections to growing markets of Russia (Pan- European Corridor 9A)

participation of the candidate country of Estonia and Latvia in traffic and research co-operation.

CREATE3S: Production to improve totalefficiency of new generation short-sea shipping

December 2006 – February 2011 (FP6)

The aim of CREATE3S was to initiate a new impulse in European Short Sea Shipping and Shipbuilding innovation by realising a new advanced concept in Short Sea Ship design, manufacturing and operating.

MOSES: Motorway of the Sea European Style

June 2007 - May 2010 (discontinued December 2008) (FP6)

The MOSES project treated Sea Motorways as an extension of the land-based TEN-T. The freight carried along the sea motorways is destined to or carried from economic hinterlands across


April, 2017 65


Europe. The sea motorways are key parts of the European logistic supply chains that are themselves part of global logistic supply chains. They are an integral part of the door to door transport chains that establish the functionality of these logistic supply chains. The organisational and technological efficiencies of all the elements of the logistic supply chains, and particularly the interfaces indicated above, were key aspects addressed by MOSES. The project was discontinued halfway through the original 36 month project period.

STARNETregio

January 2008 - July 2010 (FP7)

The STARNETregio project was conceived to increase the overall capacity of regional players in the regions Friuli Venezia Giulia (Italy), Slovenia and the County of Rijeka (Croatia) to invest in RTD and carry out research activities concerning the marine industry, in specific the shipbuilding and port equipment, intended to strengthen and develop the sector's scientific and technological basis and ultimately the economic growth of the regions.

PROPS: Promotional Platform for Short Sea Shipping and Intermodality

July 2008 – October 2011 (FP7)

The PROPS project built on previous EU and national activities undertaken to promote and develop short sea shipping. In particular, PROPS aimed to work closely with the Short Sea Promotion Centres (SPCs) to develop a workable and replicable methodology to enhance their practical promotion activities – in the fields of legislative, technical, and operational actions – and to extend their operations to encompass inter-modal and co-modal transport.

ICEWIN: Innovative icebreaking concepts for winter navigation

June 2009 - March 2012 (FP7)

The objective of the proposal was to find out what benefits can be attained in the level of service of icebreaking assistance, in logistics and especially in oil transports, and with regard to environmental emissions and risks, by:

a) adopting the new technical solutions, and/or

b) utilising the new type of agreement system

EU-CARGOXPRESS: Greening of surfacetransport through an innovative and

EU-CargoXpress aimed to develop a ‘ground-breaking innovative’ cargo


April, 2017 66


competitive CARGO-VESSEL Conceptconnecting marine and fluvial intermodalports

September 2009 - April 2012 (FP7)

vessel to meet the expectations of green transport and contributing to decongesting of Europe’s roads.

SUPERGREEN: Supporting EU’s FreightTransport Logistics Action Plan on GreenCorridors Issues

January 2010 - January 2013

The purpose of the SuperGreen project was to promote the development of European freight logistics in an environmentally friendly manner. SuperGreen evaluated a series of “green corridors” covering some representative regions and main transport routes throughout Europe.

TEFLES: Motorways of the Sea European Style Technologies and Scenarios For Low Emissions Shipping

February 2011 – January 2014 (FP7)

TEFLES addressed both sea and at port emissions scenarios by developing after treatment technologies and combining a selection of innovative and promising technologies with potential high impact, integrating them and assessing their impact with models on sea and port operation scenarios.

KNOWME: The European Academic and Industry Network for Innovative Maritime Training, Education and R&D

June 2011 – September 2014 (FP7)

The main objectives of KNOWME were to maintain and enrich the knowledge capital of the European Maritime sector by identifying knowledge enablers; improve opportunities for innovative education and training; and carrying out research for image improvement.

Source: CORDIS Projects and Results Service; and the Transport Research & Innovation Portal (TRIP)

The total budget for these 13 projects was around €50 million, including an EU contribution of around €32 million.

In the period 2014 to 2017, approximately €40 million per year of Horizon 2020 funding was allocated to support research and innovation that addresses all aspects of waterborne transport.


Projects funded under the Framework Programmes have mainly supported research and innovation directed towards all aspects of safe, clean and completive waterborne transport including short sea shipping and better integration between transport modes. These include for example innovative after treatment, cleaner engines and novel vessel concepts to support more completive shipping. Consequently, there are clear synergies with the MoS objectives.


RTD MoS projects are funded through framework programme grants which support between 70% and 100% of the eligible costs.



April, 2017 67

RTD FP projects have involved multi-national European consortia from industry, ports, national authorities, customers as well as, academic bodies, research centres, and specialised consultancy which reflect the research, innovation and technological development focus of the projects. Port authorities/ operators, maritime/ multimodal transport operators and other businesses have been involved in more than half of the MoS projects identified. The appropriateness of the beneficiaries involved is discussed in section 5.1.8.

Figure 13. RTD FP beneficiaries

Source: ICF analysis, 2016, based on data from CORDIS Projects and Results Service; and the Transport Research & Innovation Portal (TRIP)

4.4.5 State aid

Recognising the significant financial costs associated with developing and implementing Motorways of the Sea, complementary aid from Member States has been allowed for MoS projects selected under the TEN-T and Marco Polo programmes. Specifically, state aid can be awarded for operational costs of Marco Polo MoS projects up to 35% over five years and for start-up investments in TEN-T MoS projects up to 30% for two years. As noted above, state aid has been granted for two of the Marco Polo MoS projects (FRES MOS and Atlantica). For FRES MOS, the Commission approved state aid of €30 million (shared equally between France and Spain) or up to 35 % of the eligible costs within the first four years of its operation. For Atlantica, it is expected that the state aid will amount to €23.8 million (shared equally between France and Spain). State aid was granted in these two cases as it was expected to significantly contribute to the EU's strategy for developing a network of Motorways of the Sea, while its impact on competition and intra-EU trade was expected to be limited.

4.4.6 European Investment Bank

Whilst it is possible for MoS projects to apply for EIB financial support - senior debt financing or a loan guarantee through the Loan Guarantee instrument for TEN-T projects (LGTT) – the research did not identified any projects that have made use of such support. According to a recent evaluation of the scheme, possible explanations for this may be the relatively low awareness of the scheme and the general lack of


April, 2017 68

transparency about the EIB’s selection and evaluation procedures80. LGTT was only used by seven TEN-T projects during the period 2008-2012, of which only one related to the maritime transport sector (London Gateway Port under the TEN-T European Economic Recovery Plan)81.

The overarching conclusion of the LGTT evaluation was that the scheme had had a positive impact where it had been applied, but not a sufficient effect to achieve its broader objectives. The evaluation also suggested that the LGTT instrument had worked better in a project finance environment, which is different to the corporate finance model that has been used by most of the maritime projects.

4.5 Summary

The analysis above provides an overall population of 97 MoS projects (excluding the additional Interreg ‘MOS-type’ projects) for the period up to 2013. In total these projects accounted for more than €1.9 billion of activity, including EU funding support in excess of around €0.5 billion. The projects are distributed across the different funding instruments as shown in Table 17.

Table 17. MoS projects

Funding instrument

Number of projects

Total project cost (€m)

EU contribution (€m)

TEN-T 51 1,471.9 353.1

Marco Polo 4 309.082 14.483

Interreg 1684 40.0 21.2

ENPI 9 24.0 23.5

IPA 4 20.5 17.4

RTD FP 13 49.8 32.1

Total 97 1,915.2 461.7


It is clear that the TEN-T programme, and, to a lesser extent, the Marco Polo programme have been at the core of MoS over the period reviewed. The TEN-T programme alone accounted for more than half of the projects and nearly three quarters of the EU contribution. Consequently, the analysis in subsequent sections focuses on the TEN-T and Marco Polo programmes.

80 European Commission (2014), Ex-post evaluation of the loan guarantee instrument for Trans-European Transport Network projects (LGTT) 81 European Commission (2014), Ex-post evaluation of the loan guarantee instrument for Trans-European Transport Network projects (LGTT) 82 This has been calculated on the basis of the final amount of accepted eligible costs for the three completed projects. For Atlantica (which commenced in 2015) ICF used the total eligible costs according to grant agreement (€77,008,066) 83 This has been calculated on the basis of the actual EU contribution for the three completed projects. For Atlantica (which commenced in 2015) we have used the maximum EU contribution (€3,000,000). 84 There are an additional 101 projects potentially related to MoS and/ or in the ‘spirit of MoS’


April, 2017 69

Other important funding sources, as discussed above, are the Interreg programmes, ENPI, IPA and the Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development.

MoS projects have supported a diverse range of activities, reflecting the provisions of the relevant legal and financial frameworks governing the various funding programmes. TEN-T has mostly funded studies (59% of projects and 35% of the EU funding) and mixed projects (24% of projects and 42% of the EU funding), many of which relate to safety and environmental protection (39%) or ICT solutions (22%), particularly since 2010. Marco Polo funding was used to provide start-up aid for transport services. Interreg projects have focused on setting up networks and working groups, as well as providing analysis and developing joint tools, strategies and frameworks to support the development and implementation of MoS. ENPI projects have primarily identified and provided technical support to pilot Motorways of the Sea projects. The projects funded under the IPA have included the development of masterplans, single window systems and sustainable/intermodal transport solutions. The projects funded under the Framework Programmes have mostly taken the form of coordination and support actions.

The MoS projects received varying levels of EU co-funding. The EU contribution to projects, which has consisted of grant funding, ranged from 20% under the TEN-T programme (works) to 100% under the ENPI.

Whilst it is not possible for the same MoS project to receive grants from more than one EU funding source, there are MoS projects that have benefited from complementary support through the Cohesion Fund and the EU Structural Funds (ERDF).

State aid has been used to provide additional funding for two Marco Polo projects. No MoS projects have been identified that used senior debt financing or a loan guarantee through the Loan Guarantee instrument for TEN-T projects (LGTT). Loans and equity from mainstream financial markets have, however, been used by some MoS projects to fund infrastructure works.

Beneficiaries of funding varies across the funding programmes, reflecting the different objectives and types of activities supported through the various programmes.


April, 2017 70

5 Findings of the evaluation

This section provides a response to each of the evaluation questions relating to the evaluation criteria: effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, relevance and EU added value. Evaluation question 6.1 (feedback from the Task Forces) is cross-cutting and referenced in a number of responses. There is a certain amount of repetition as some evaluation questions cover similar themes, but efforts have been made to cross-reference wherever possible.

5.1 Effectiveness and efficiency of Motorways of the Sea

5.1.1 Introduction

This section considers the success of the Motorways of the Sea concept in achieving its objectives and the relationship between the resources used and the changes generated by the intervention.

Whilst MoS was first identified in the 2001, a ‘clear’ definition for the concept was not developed until its inclusion in the 2004 TEN-T guidelines (Article 12a). Indeed, Haralambous (2005)85, noted that the TEN-T guidelines provided a more precise description of the role and objective of the concept, as well as highlighting the four corridors to be considered as potential geographical areas.

According to Article 12a, the main objective of MoS was no longer just to revitalise short sea shipping but also to:

concentrate freight flow on sea-based logistical routes;

increase cohesion among the Member States; and

reduce road congestion through modal shift.

5.1.2 (EQ 2.1A) How effective has the MoS policy been in supporting Short Sea Shipping and providing for an alternative for road transport or in better connecting islands and remote areas?

To answer this evaluation question, it is necessary to assess how, and if, MoS supported the development of short sea shipping (from the baseline provided in Section 2.7) and whether MoS has had an impact on modal shift from road to sea. The extent to which MoS has resulted in additional or more frequent services towards islands and remote areas is also assessed.

5.1.2.1 Supporting Short Sea Shipping (SSS)

The development of Motorways of the Sea and the implementation of the Marco Polo programme were both identified as important actions in the 2003 Programme for the promotion of short sea shipping.

With nearly 100 MoS projects funded, most directly through the TEN-T and Marco Polo programmes, Motorways of the Sea has supported the short sea shipping sector. The MoS projects have included a diverse range of activities and have resulted in some encouraging developments and advancements in the sector. For example:

Infrastructure investments have been used improve the efficiency of specific port operations and transport links. For example, the Motorways of the Sea Esbjerg – Zeebrugge project invested in infrastructure and facilities such as a floating Ro-Ro ramp, the extension of an access way in Esbjerg, a Ro-Ro jetty, gantry cranes and ICT development in Zeebrugge. The project led to major improvements in the handling of goods and attracted more goods on the Ro-Ro

85 Haralambous, G., The contribution of the “Sea Motorways” to the European transport Policy, Hellenic Institute of transport, Piraeus, 2005


April, 2017 71

based intermodal concept. Similarly, the Motorway of the Sea Rostock-Gedser action improved efficiency of port operations through infrastructure improvements such as the extension to the Rostock-Berlin railway, the upgrading of European road E55 into the port of Rostock, and the introduction of new ferries.

New approaches and technologies have been piloted, particularly in relation to environmental performance and sea traffic management/single window. For example, the MonaLisa (2010-EU-21109-S) action developed, inter alia, a new methodology for maritime route planning, piloted a system for sharing maritime data.

Four Marco Polo MoS projects, as well as some TEN-T projects (e.g. Baltic Link Gdynia-Karlskrona), established new or more frequent services.

Cross-border cooperation has been encouraged, including cooperation with neighbouring countries. For example, the Advanced National Networks for Administrations (AnNa) aimed to improve cross-border cooperation through the development and adoption of the national maritime single window and electronic data transmission for the fulfilment of reporting requirements for vessels entering and departing European ports. Another example of a project designed to improve cooperation between neighbouring countries is the Winter Navigation Motorways of the Sea (WINMOS) action. The project enhanced cooperation between ice breaking authorities and resource planners.

Projects have supported innovation and the development of prototypes for deployment. For example, Monitoring and Operation Services for Motorways of the Sea (MOS4MOS) involved the design and demonstration of a set of prototypes that improved operational coordination of transport flows. The project ‘Sustainable Traffic Machines - On the way to greener shipping’ looked at the impacts of installing hybrid propulsion and exhaust gas cleaning solutions on two RoPax86 vessels.

There is also broad agreement among the stakeholders that MoS has supported the development of SSS. For example, almost all of the SPCs consulted, and most of the Member State Focal Points, agreed that it had. Opinions are exemplified by these quotes from SPCs:

‘MoS has provided a lift for the sector and has contributed to the short sea shipping development, and has effectively supported the creation of regular lines and services (container, Ro-Ro, breakbulk).’

‘Due to introduction of MoS, shipping as [a] transport option has gained more visibility in EU member states. ‘

‘SSS has gained from the development of MoS through the use of dedicated ships (that are also technologically adapted to increase efficiency and safety), the upgrading of existing and construction of new port infrastructure, the use effective equipment in ports, dedicated terminals, hinterland connectivity )(i.e. efficient and seamless Road/IWW/Rail links). Administrative procedures and inspection have also been simplified, while integrated ICT systems have supported communication and facilitated information flows.’

‘MoS has increased cooperation between major hub ports in different Member States and promoted certain sea routes. It has also promoted quality aspects of shipping.’

86 RoPax is a term describing vessels that have roll-on/roll-off facilities for the carriage of vehicles and the capacity to carry large numbers of passengers.


April, 2017 72

Similarly, the Member State Focal Points observed that:

‘MoS has highlighted the role and importance of wider benefit maritime activities benefiting SSS sector as a whole and not only specific links between ports. Such activities include icebreaking, hydrographic surveying, maritime traffic management etc. It has also promoted the cooperation between actors, e.g. ports (both nationally and cross-border) with joint investment needs serving the maritime traffic between the ports. Joint strategic planning between actors has therefore increased, also between national administrations (icebreaking, hydrographic surveying, and maritime traffic management systems). MoS has encouraged ship owners and ports to make use of new and more environmentally-friendly technology by designating environmental issues as a top priority for granting EU funding for MoS projects.’

‘MoS has raised awareness and changed the thinking in transport policy and logistics. It has provided practical examples of how the SSS concept can be substantiated – e.g. through the promotion of inter-modality and inter-operability, innovation in transport / market-oriented solutions, pilot projects or actions in ports or port services, improvement of procedures, exchange of good practices, networking and cooperation of different stakeholders from different Member States, support of initiatives aimed at improved environmental performance and compliance with environmental legislation (e.g. use of cleaner fuels, associated port infrastructure, abatement methods).’

5.1.2.2 Providing for an alternative for road transport

Whilst the section above shows that MoS has supported the development of short sea shipping, the extent to which MoS has provided an alternative for road transport (as measured through a modal shift from road to sea) is less clear. Whilst modal shift from road to sea was only an explicit measurable objective of the Marco Polo programme, it is an aim for the MoS policy as a whole.

The latest Eurostat statistics shows that freight volumes in the European SSS sector have recovered somewhat following the economic and financial crisis, although 2014 volumes of European short sea shipping remains below the figures recorded in 2007.

Figure 14. Short Sea Shipping freight volumes, 2005-2014

Source: Eurostat, 2016 (June update)

The transport performance across all transport modes shows that total freight movements in the intra-EU28, measured on a tonne-kilometre basis, decreased by


April, 2017 73

3.9% during the period 2005-2014 (see figure 15)87. For sea transport the decrease was 4.7%, whilst for road transport freight movements decreased by 3.9%. Freight movements reached a low in 2009 and had not returned to 2008 levels by 2014. In terms of modal shares, road transport retained its dominance as the main transport mode, with its modal share increasing marginally from 48.9% to 49.0% between 2005 and 2014. By contrast, the proportion of freight movements by sea decreased from 32.1% to 31.8% in the same period.

Figure 15. EU-28 freight transport by mode, 2005-2014

Source: ICF analysis based on Eurostat Statistical Pocketbook 2016 – EU transport in figures

Table 18 provides further data on the transport performance in tonne-kilometres for the main transport modes for the period 2009-201488. The road transport data presented in this table differ slightly from the data presented in Figure 15 – the road transport data in Table 18 computed according to the ‘territoriality principle’ in order to reach coherence across the modes of transport considered (in Figure 15 they are reported on the basis of the nationality of the haulier). This change in methodology reduces the relative importance of road transport. Table 18 indicates that the growth of maritime transport has been much stronger in recent years than that of road transport (8.4% compared to 0.9%).

The relatively larger increase in maritime transport performance contributed to an increase in its modal share. Between 2009 and 2014 maritime transport increased its freight share, on tonne-kilometre basis, by one percentage point. In 2014, 33.4% of all intra-EU28 freight moved by sea. Road’s share of freight transport performed by road transport fell from 52% in 2009 to 49.8% in 2014.

87 Eurostat (2016), Statistical Pocketbook 2016 – EU transport in figures https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/pocketbook2016.pdf 88 Freight transport statistics – modal split (April 2016) http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Freight_transport_statistics_-_modal_split


April, 2017 74

Table 18. Freight transport performance in the EU-28 (billion tkm, adjusted for territoriality)

Mode of transport

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Growth rate

2009-2014

Road 1,660.3 1,714.7 1,699.4 1,644.7 1,668.6 1,674.7 0.9%

Rail 363.5 393.5 422.1 406.6 406.5 410.8 13.0%

Inland waterways 130.5 155.5 142.0 150.0 152.8 150.9

15.6%

Air 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.2 0.7%

Maritime 1,035.2 1,094.3 1,111.3 1,084.8 1,081.5 1,122.1 8.4%

Total 3,191.8 3,360.4 3,377.0 3,288.3 3,311.7 3,360.7 5.3%

Source: Freight transport statistics - modal split (April 2016); Air and maritime cover only intra-EU transport (transport to/from countries of the EU) and exclude extra-EU transport. These data were computed by Eurostat and it has not been possible to replicate this for the period before 2009.

Figure 16. Freight transport in the EU-28 modal split based on five transport modes (% of total tonne-kilometres)

Source: Freight transport statistics - modal split (April 2015); Air and maritime cover only intra-EU transport (transport to/from countries of the EU) and exclude extra-EU transport

Whilst the above analysis appears to show an improvement in the absolute and relative performance of intra-EU maritime transport since 2009, MoS’ contribution to these changes is undetermined. There is a lack of evidence on the impact of MoS on the modal shift from road to maritime transport. Concrete evidence on modal shift is only available for the Marco Polo projects, for which the tonne kilometres shifted from road to sea was a specific output variable and linked to the EU contribution to the project. Overall, the three completed Marco Polo MoS projects together shifted 5.6 billion tonne-kilometres (during the life time of the projects – 48-62 months). This represents just 40% of the 14 billion tkm modal shift planned by the projects. Results vary by project: the Ro-Ro Past France project achieved 27% of the planned modal shift, whilst Gulfstream. MoS and FRES MOS achieved 83% and 85% of the planned modal shift respectively. The modal shift gains were not sustained, two of the three supported services (Ro-Ro Past France and FRES MOS) have had to stop or suspend service due to a lack of demand and/ or economic viability. For FRES MOS, the service was quite successful in terms of operation and market demand but was not economically viable without state aid. The results were not helped by the financial and


April, 2017 75

economic crisis which resulted in lower freight volumes and overcapacity on many existing services.

For the other funding programmes there is no evidence of impacts on modal shift; this was not an explicit measureable objective. The stakeholder consultations provided some anecdotal evidence of cases where MoS promoted a modal shift from road to sea. For example, most respondents to the written consultation of TEN-T project beneficiaries (11 out of 14) and Member State Focal Points and Short Sea Promotion Centres (SPC) for Shortsea Shipping and Motorways of the Sea (6 out of 10) report that their project, or the MoS policy as a whole, had contributed to the promotion of modal shift from road to sea. Most project beneficiaries also believed that their project had contributed to a reduction in road congestion. Most Member State Focal Points and SPC did not consider MoS to have contributed to a reduction in road congestion.

Figure 17. Written consultation results – Member State Focal Points and Short Sea Promotion Centres for Shortsea Shipping and Motorways of the Sea

Source: Based on 10 Member State Focal Points and Short Sea Promotion Centres for Shortsea Shipping and Motorways of the Sea

Almost all the Member State Focal Points that were interviewed found it hard to provide evidence of the concrete impacts of MoS, particularly the impacts on modal shift. The trade/ industry associations were also careful in their assessment of the effectiveness of the MoS policy in promoting modal shift from road to sea. Whilst recognising that many projects have been successful, they did not consider MoS to have contributed to any significant modal shift. A few project beneficiaries and other stakeholders suggested that the MoS policy had contributed to existing market share being maintained.

Much of the available literature also concludes that MoS has had a limited contribution on modal choice. It has been suggested that the market potential for modal shift from land to sea is overestimated and that it has, to an extent, been hampered by a ‘poorly defined’ SSS market in the context of the EU (Haralambous, 2005, and Cappucilli, 2011). Cappucilli (2011) notes that an improved evaluation of each segment of the SSS market is required to ensure the effectiveness of policy interventions. EU subsidies are not sufficient in themselves to address the obstacles to the development of the SSS industry. A joint statement89 by a number of trade/ industry associations,

89 The “Athens Declaration” A Year On: Exploiting the Full Potential of Short Sea Shipping (April 2015)


April, 2017 76

following the Athens Declaration, suggested that SSS sector is put at a disadvantage relative to its competitors moving cargo by road or rail due to additional regulatory and administrative burdens. A similar argument is put forward by Kristiansen (2007), who suggests that the relative cost of SSS compared to rail or road freight is preventing significant modal shift.

Figure 18. Written consultation results – TEN-T project beneficiaries

Source: Based on 14 TEN-T project beneficiaries

Evidence from the reference projects is mixed. This largely reflects the varying objectives of the projects. Only a small number of projects had set an objective of promoting modal shift from road to sea and in most instances the impact was expected to be indirect. For the TEN-T projects, modal shift was facilitated via investment in vessels and port infrastructure, safety and ICT improvements, etc. A few of the reference project beneficiaries noted that their project had funded studies or pilot actions and so had no direct impact on modal shift. This observation was echoed by many of the Member State Focal Points. Such projects have not yet resulted in any concrete impacts in terms of modal shift but have the potential to do so in the future if they are implemented successfully.

5.1.2.3 Better connecting islands and remote areas

As part of the objective of concentrating flows of freight on sea routes, the MoS policy has also sought to improve access to peripheral and island regions and Member States. The overall assessment suggests that the MoS policy has not been very effective in achieving this objective. This view is supported by the European MoS Coordinator, who in his 2010 annual report, stated that: ‘…MoS under TEN-T, and particularly under Marco Polo, are useless for islands as they do not consider their specific problems’. Similar arguments have been put forward in the literature90.

Part of the reason for the limited success in this area is that the MoS set up is often unsuitable for connecting islands and peripheral regions. For example, Hache (2009) notes that the project time scales and the relatively low intervention rate associated with most of the instruments that support MoS (e.g. 20-30% for implementation (works) projects under TEN-T) limit the creation of new international routes to islands and peripheral areas (due to the difficulties of establishing such routes). Moreover, many peripheral areas are excluded from the network planning and maps of the TEN-

90 See, for example, Hache (2009) Integrating the EU islands in the Motorways of the Sea


April, 2017 77

T. Marco Polo support was restricted to Category A ports, i.e. ports with a total annual traffic volume of not less than 1.5 million tonnes of freight or 200,000 passengers. This partly explains why islands (and to a lesser extent remote areas) were largely absent from the projects funded through the main MoS funding instruments (i.e. TEN-T and Marco Polo).

Another important factor is that SSS requires relatively large quantities of cargo in both directions for routes to be viable (Baindur & Viegas, 2011). It is rare for routes between the mainland and islands or peripheral areas to have balanced trade flows. Moreover, for islands, maritime transport has a number of specific features. For example, as noted by Hache (2009):

In some islands, the main exports are goods which will not travel on normal shipping services (oil or gas, cattle, etc.), and thus require specialised vessels.

Island traffic is often seasonal, either because of the impact of tourism on consumption (with an increase in imports during the tourist season), or because the island exports agricultural products which are seasonal.

Islands tend to trade primarily with their national mainland. With the exception of very specialised freight (e.g. export of oil or gas from oil terminals or refineries), trade with other EU countries, or third countries, is seldom of a significant volume.

Moreover, for islands there is often no alternative to maritime transport. As a result, MoS funding would primarily reduce the cost for the users rather than facilitate a modal shift.

For peripheral areas, road transport has an advantage in that it offers greater flexibility in terms of accessing return loads, including from adjacent areas.

The limited impact on this objective has been confirmed by project beneficiaries and other stakeholders (see Figure 17 and 18 above). For example, only around 40% of respondents to the written consultation of project beneficiaries (TEN-T) and Member State Focal Points and Short Sea Promotion Centres for Shortsea Shipping and Motorways of the Sea thought that their project and/or the MoS policy as a whole have contributed towards this objective.

Notwithstanding the overall assessment, there are a few MoS projects that have improved (or, for incomplete projects, are expected to improve) access to some peripheral and regions and Member States. For example:

The Kvarken Multimodal Link - Midway Alignment of the Bothnian Corridor project funded preparatory activities and feasibility studies, as well as concept development (improving the transport link and land/port infrastructure) and the new ferry designs (e.g. environmentally friendly alternative fuels, sufficient icebreaking capacity). The concepts have subsequently been taken forward into a Phase 2 project (to be delivered between 2016 and 2018). The follow-up project will focus on implementation, including building the ferry, constructing the necessary land-based infrastructure, facilitating the transportation of alternative fuels and storage and implementing the logistic system and operations. This project had yet to be finalised at the time of the evaluation.

Atlantica OptiMoS aimed to revitalise a peripheral region of the Iberian Peninsula by upgrading the existing maritime link between Nantes St. Nazaire (France) and Vigo (Spain). It was not complete at the time of this evaluation.

Business to Motorways of the Sea (B2MOS) has involved a number of partners from peripheral and ultra-peripheral regions. Specifically, Activity 2 of the project intended to facilitate trade and promote the use of MoS by removing obstacles to intra-Community freight transport by sea and piloting IT solutions


April, 2017 78

to increase cohesion and facilitate trade with peripheral and ultra-peripheral regions.

Through Winter Navigation Motorways of the Sea (WINMOS) TEN-T funding has been used to further develop efficient maritime transport during the winter when sea ice covers large parts of the EU's northernmost waters. Many of the regions affected by sea ice are peripheral regions.

All the projects mentioned above finished in December 2015 and it was not possible to fully establish whether the objectives have been achieved in advance of the approval of their final reports. Consultations with the project beneficiaries suggest that they have generally been successful.

5.1.3 (EQ 2.1B) How does the progress in different corridors compare?

An overview of the number and type of projects funded in each of the four corridors is provided to illustrate the progress of MoS in each area.

TEN-T investment in MoS projects has been concentrated in the Baltic Sea region. The Baltic accounts for 27 out of a total of 51 projects (53%) and nearly three quarters (73%) of the total funding allocated to TEN-T MoS projects (€258.2m of the €353.1m allocated to TEN-T MoS projects).

Throughout the period considered in this evaluation, 10 projects (19% of TEN-T projects have been implemented in the Western Europe corridor. Interest in the MoS concept increased late in the evaluation period, with five of the 13 projects funded through the 2013 call being located in this corridor. The South-West and South-East Europe corridors had three and five projects respectively. Six projects spanned more than one of the MoS corridors (these are classified as cross-corridor projects in the figure below).

Figure 19. TEN-T project distribution by MoS corridor


The geographical distribution of projects is further illustrated in the figure below.


April, 2017 79

Figure 20. Geographical coverage (by year), 2004-2013


The figure shows variation in Member States’ involvement. For example, Sweden has been involved in nearly half the projects (24) whilst countries such as Bulgaria, Ireland, Latvia and Romania have only been involved in one project each. Other countries that have been highly involved in TEN-T projects are Italy (17), Denmark (14), Spain (14), Germany (13), Finland (12) and the United Kingdom (10).

The relatively large number of projects involving partners from the Baltic Sea can in part be explained by the history of cooperation and the existing links/ partnerships in this region (e.g. the Council of the Baltic Sea States, the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region, as well as regional projects). This has helped the development of projects in the corridor, particularly during the early years of the MoS concept. For example, one project beneficiary noted that the development of projects in the Baltic Sea can take place at the services level, without political involvement, as a result of the existing partnerships. The arrangements for submitting proposals and/or developing projects has been more restrictive in other regions (perhaps with the exception of the North Sea), at least for implementation projects. For example, the North Sea and Baltic Sea corridors had open calls for implementation projects (works) between 2009 and 2013, whilst the calls for proposals (implementation projects) in the two Mediterranean corridors were open only for a limited duration. For the East Mediterranean corridor the first call was open between December 2007 and February 2008 and the second call was open between May and November 2009. In the West Mediterranean corridor the only regional call was open between June and November 2009.

Member State stakeholders also noted that the corridor master plans have been important in determining the focus of the regional calls and the scope of many of the funded projects. For example, Baltic Sea stakeholders highlighted the role of the Baltic Maritime Outlook 2006 (part of the co-funded TEN-T project - ‘Master Plan Studies for development of the Motorways of the Baltic Sea’) – see Box 1.


April, 2017 80

Box 1 Master Plan Studies for development of the Motorways of the Baltic Sea

The main objective of this project was to develop a framework (or ‘masterplan’) which would provide a basis for further and more detailed planning of the development of the Motorways of the Sea concept for the Baltic Sea region. The project was divided into four different sub-projects:

Sub-project 1 - Baltic Maritime Outlook - Study on goods flows and maritime infrastructure

This study contributed to an increased knowledge of the goods flows and maritime infrastructure, as well as the likely future development and demand of maritime transport, in the Baltic Sea region. The study included both the intra-regional and extra-regional dimension of trade and transport. The study has served as an important input to the development of Motorways of the Sea and other maritime-related activities.

Sub-project 2 - Baltic Sea Winter Motorways

This sub-project provided a basis for further actions on how to ensure efficient winter navigation on the Baltic Sea within the framework of the TEN-T Motorways of the Sea. A Nordic Agreement exists between Finland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Germany to co-ordinate their efforts to assist ships traffic and keep the vessels moving during winter, but it was seen as important to look at potential ways to extend this cooperation to all Baltic Sea countries.

Sub-project 3 - Safe major routes of the Motorways of the Baltic Sea

This included the development of outsourcing specifications and procedures and a review of national chart sounding reference levels. It also sought to evaluate data processing procedures and digital data transfer protocols between national authorities.

Sub-project 4 – North Sea Baltic Hub

This sub-project provided an overview of the conditions for containerised shipments and how that service is organised within the Baltic sea region. It also set out a number of action points for Aarhus and Gothenburg to become hub ports; and for Helsinki to develop its port activity.

EU legislation requiring a reduction in the sulphur content of marine fuel, adopted to reduce sulphur oxide emissions from ships,91 has had a strong influence on how MoS funding is used, particularly in Northern Europe.

All the Marco Polo projects have been implemented in Spain and the Atlantic sea basin (or the Western Europe corridor). This is likely to reflect the potential for short sea shipping development in the Atlantic sea basin, which currently faces a number of barriers, including administrative burdens at Atlantic ports92.

91 The EU legislation6 (2012 amendment of Directive 1999/32:EC codified in 2016) obliges vessels operating in the SECA from 1st January 2015 to burn a maximum sulphur content in their fuel of 0.1% compared to previous limit of 1.0%. Alternatively to the use of low sulphur fuels, the exhaust gas must be cleaned to obtain an equivalent sulphur oxides reduction. 92 DG Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (2014) Study on Deepening Understanding of Potential Blue Growth in the EU Member States on Europe’s Atlantic Arc


April, 2017 81

ENPI and IPA projects have been implemented in the Mediterranean Sea, mostly in the South-East Europe corridor.

Projects supported by Interreg have been more evenly distributed across the four corridors, albeit with a slight bias towards the Western Europe corridor (North Sea and Atlantic Sea).

When assessing the progress in each of the corridors it is also important to consider the contexts that apply in each of the defined MoS corridors. The four MoS corridors have different features, including climate, political and economic environments and number of sea connections. For example, in the Baltic Sea there is already a dense maritime freight services network so there has been less interest in establishing new transport links. Consequently, much of the focus in the Baltic Sea has been on wider benefit projects, including environmental performance projects. The focus on environmental performance projects has also been influenced by the introduction of SECA.

Very few studies have compared the progress of MoS in the different corridors. Roumboutsos & Kapros (2012) concluded there were significant regional differences in Marco Polo results. Through the application of a Systems Innovation Framework (SIF) and methodology, the authors found that the regulatory framework for the application of the Marco Polo programme and the potential funding opportunities had excluded Eastern Mediterranean actors. Indeed, the Marco Polo programme was designed and used to divert traffic from road to sea, whilst a large share of connections in the Eastern Mediterranean corridor unavoidably involve maritime flows between islands (Cyprus, Malta) and the continent (Italy, Greece, Slovenia), or between islands (Kapros, 2010). Similarly, transport in the Adriatic between Greece and Italy could not be supported by the Marco Polo programme as the alternative road routes were either too long or crossed the territories of Albania, Serbia, Montenegro and Croatia. This situation has, according to Roumboutsos & Kapros (2012), led to distortion of market competition between actors based in the Eastern and Western Mediterranean; with the latter being favoured and the former excluded from access to support.

Although there has been a number of competition-related complaints, at least for the Marco Polo programme (10 complaints affecting 6 maritime projects between 2007 and 2010)93, there is very little, if any, concrete evidence suggesting significant adverse competition effects in any real economic sense (e.g. in terms of creation of a dominant market position, abuse of market power, collusion). An EASME analysis of competition complaints relating to Marco Polo funding found that the majority were based on ‘company feelings’ about competitors receiving Marco Polo subsidies rather than real competition elements. In this context, it is possible that the complaints could be an element of market competition between the competitors rather than reflecting well-founded concerns of competition distortion94.

5.1.4 (EQ 2.1C) Is there evidence that MoS projects have aided in reducing road congestion in linked areas?

As there is no agreed official methodology and no harmonised statistical data on road congestion it is very difficult to assess the effectiveness of the Motorways of the Sea concept in addressing the problem. This was also the conclusion of the European Court of Auditor report on the Marco Polo programme95. Nevertheless, it can be deduced that the reduction in road congestion would be correlated with the achievements in relation to modal shift (covered in 5.1.2.2).

93 European Commission (2011) Evaluation of the Marco Polo Programme 2003-2010 94 Ibid. 95 European Court of Auditors (2013) Have the Marco Polo programmes been effective in shifting traffic off the road?; Special Report No 3


April, 2017 82

Stakeholder views on the effectiveness of MoS in reducing road congestion are mixed and of a highly qualitative nature. For example, most TEN-T project beneficiaries that responded to the written consultation considered their projects to have contributed this objective, whilst the Member State Focal Points and Short Sea Promotion Centres considered this to be the objective for which MoS has been least effective (Figure 17 and 18). Perhaps unsurprisingly, many of the project beneficiaries that considered their project to have contributed to a reduction in road congestion were responsible for transport link projects (4 out of 11). All of the projects that were not expected to contribute to this objective were environmental protection projects.

Given the deficiencies in the available data on road congestion it is difficult to validate either of these views.

5.1.5 (EQ 2.2) How well does the geographical scope of the MoS projects correspond to the pattern of actual trade flows between EU ports as well as between EU and third country ports?

This section provides an analysis of the development of freight flows within and between the MoS corridors to assess the fit of the geographical scope of the MoS projects (as detailed in section 5.1.3) to the pattern of trade flows between EU ports as well as between EU and third country ports. The analysis is based on seaport data collected by Eurostat and shows the major traffic flows between the different sea basins (Baltic Sea, North Sea/Atlantic, Western Mediterranean, Eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea96) and the short sea traffic between ports in these regions. It considers roll-on roll-off (Ro-Ro, incl. RoPax) traffic, in which trucks or trailers access ships via ramps, and container lift-on lift-off traffic, in which containers are stacked on board using ship-to-shore cranes.

The analysis is based on a comparison of freight flows between 2002 and 2013 to cover the full implementation period of the MoS concept. Data for 2008 are also included to facilitate assessment of trends before and after the 2008 economic crisis. The freight flows analysis refers to the intra-corridor flows (i.e. flows within a corridor) and external-corridor flows (i.e. flows between two corridors)97.

5.1.5.1 Developments of container flows

The development of container flows within the five corridors has been assessed. The Atlantic, the Black Sea and the Baltic Sea saw the highest growth in intra-corridor container flows, albeit from a much lower base than the North Sea or Mediterranean. There was an increase of 180% for the Atlantic, 140% for the Black Sea and 135% for the Baltic Sea between 2002 and 2013. The North Sea and the Mediterranean have by far the biggest intra-corridor container flows.

96 Since the Black Sea has become an emerging maritime region, the analysis includes the Black Sea as a fifth corridor. 97 For some ports the maritime region of destination is unknown for a large share of outgoing traffic so the analysis is based on incoming traffic (excluding non-EU member states except Norway).


April, 2017 83

Figure 21. European container short sea flows within corridors for 2002 and 2013

Note: Data for certain ports were not available for the year 2002; in these cases data for 2003 or 2004 have been used. Source: ISL based on EUROSTAT

The following tables illustrate the changes in container flows between different sea basins over the 2002 to 2013 period. Tables 19 to 21 show the container flows from the countries belonging to the five maritime regions into the ports of each maritime region for 2002, 2008 (marking the peak of the financial crisis and the start of the economic recession that followed) and 2013. Between 2002 and 2008 total short sea container traffic (i.e. intra and inter-regional traffic) increased from 93 million tonnes to 121 million tonnes (or 30.5%), a 4.5% increase per year. The total increase for intra-regional traffic was only 23%, with an annual growth of 4.3%. Inter-regional traffic increased by 40% in total and by 7% annually.

Traffic dropped sharply as a result of the financial and economic crisis, but increased again in the following years to reach 135 million tonnes by 2013, i.e. an increase by 11.5% and by 2.2% annually.98 During the same period, intra-regional traffic increased by 8% in total and by 1.5% on a yearly base. Again here, growth in inter-regional traffic was higher, i.e. with 16% for the whole period and with 3% per annum.

98 The intra-container volumes with each maritime region are included here.


April, 2017 84

Table 19. European container short sea flows for 2002 (in 1,000 tonnes)

*incoming traffic excluding Russia ** incoming traffic for Bulgaria and Romania only Note: Data for certain ports was not available for the year 2002; in these cases data for 2003 or 2004 have been used. Source: ISL based on EUROSTAT


*incoming traffic excluding Russia ** incoming traffic for Bulgaria and Romania only Source: ISL based on EUROSTAT


*incoming traffic excluding Russia ** incoming traffic for Bulgaria and Romania only Source: ISL based on EUROSTAT

Traffic on all major axes with more than one million tonnes was considerably higher in 2013 than in 2008 except for the intra-North Range traffic (between Rotterdam, Hamburg, Antwerp, Bremen/Bremerhaven, Le Havre and Zeebrugge). This is due to the fact that in 2008 the large overseas liner services tended to call at fewer ports in Europe than in 2013. As container ship capacity was comparatively scarce in 2008, fewer ships were employed on each service. Therefore, they had to go faster and reduce the number of port calls in order to cope with the total volume. Feeder services were used extensively to ship containers from/to the actual origin/destination ports of the cargo. This decrease in intra-range traffic affected all major container ports in the area.

Comparing 2002 and 2013, the biggest increases between corridors occurred in:

From… TotalTo… Atlantic Baltic Sea Black Sea Mediterr. North SeaAtlantic 794 54 4 949 2294 4095Baltic Sea* 40 2267 23 29 6822 9181Black Sea** 0 0 102 649 1 752Mediterranean 1610 260 1097 23210 4748 30925North Sea 2451 11950 52 5094 28471 48018Total 4895 14531 1278 29931 42336 92971




April, 2017 85

flows from the Baltic Sea region into North Sea ports, from 12 million tonnes to 25.2 million tonnes (18.9 million tonnes in 2008);

flows from the North Sea region into Baltic Sea ports, from 6 million tonnes to 12.5 million tonnes (15.4 million tonnes in 2008);

flows from the Atlantic region into Mediterranean ports, from 1.6 million tonnes to 3.2 million tonnes (2.3 million tonnes in 2008);

flows from the Black Sea region into Mediterranean ports, from 1.1 million tonnes to 2.2 million tonnes (1.1 million tonnes in 2008).

Incoming volumes into ports in the Atlantic, the Mediterranean and the North Sea increased between 2002 and 2008 and continued to increase in the period from 2008 to 2013. In the Baltic Sea ports incoming volumes increased between 2002 and 2008, but by 2013 the incoming volumes was below the pre-crisis levels of 2008. The total incoming volumes into Black Sea ports increased from 752,000 tonnes to 788,000 tonnes between 2002 and 2008, but by 2013 volumes had fallen dramatically to 412,000 tonnes. Flows from the Mediterranean region to Baltic Sea ports, and also to North Sea ports, fell slightly between 2002 and 2008 but then recovered during the period 2008-2013. The reductions in volume experienced in some of the sea regions can be expected to be, at least in part, attributable to the overall trade flows (exports and imports) between these regions failing to recover following the economic crisis. Indeed, Eurostat data shows that intra-EU28 import and export levels did not return to pre-crisis levels until 2011 and then remained largely stagnant until 2013 before increasing again99. There is also some evidence that short sea shipping was affected much more by the economic crisis than road transport in some countries (most notably Bulgaria, Finland and Romania). This in turn may indicate a shift from short sea shipping to land-based transport in these countries100, although for the EU as a whole maritime transport has increased its share of freight transport relative to road transport (see section 5.1.2.2).

5.1.5.2 Developments of Ro-Ro (incl. RoPax) flows

Tables 22 to 24 show the development of Ro-Ro cargo flows within each maritime region. The North Sea saw the largest intra-regional Ro-Ro traffic volumes in 2002 and 2013 although this trade actually fell by 500,000 tonnes per annum over the period.

The Baltic Sea and the Mediterranean are the two other maritime regions with large intra-regional Ro-Ro volumes. Each saw an increase in volume over the 2002-2013 period; 22% for the Baltic and 70% for the Mediterranean.

Ro-Ro traffic in the Baltic Sea and in the North Sea grew strongly until 2008, but failed to reach the pre-crisis levels in 2013. Traffic in the North Sea in 2013, much of which was traffic between the British Isles and the European continent, was 16% below its 2008 level.

Ro-Ro transport is predominately intra-regional. This is not surprising as Ro-Ro transport is generally focused on short distances (and is sometimes characterised as sea transport with a bridging role).

Total Ro-Ro volumes for all regions increased from 150 million tonnes in 2002 to 186 million tonnes in 2013. Given that volumes on most corridors are low, the Ro-Ro transport on the North Sea - Baltic Sea corridor, which grew from 8.3 million tonnes in 2002 to 12 million tonnes in 2013, is noteworthy.

From 2003 to 2008 intra-regional trade grew 25% (an annual rate of 4.7%) while inter-regional trade grew 40.5% (an annual rate of 7.3%), i.e. a rate similar to that of

99 EUROSTAT, International trade in goods statistics 100 EUROSTAT, Multimodal transport statistics


April, 2017 86

container flows. For the 2008 to 2013 period, intra-regional flows fell 3% (an annual decrease of 0.56%) but inter-regional traffic grew by 3.9% (an annual increase of 0.77%).

Notwithstanding such trends, inter-regional transport still only accounts for a small share of Ro-Ro volumes (6% – 7%). The inter-regional transport share in the container market is much higher, at 40% - 45%.

Figure 22. Corridor-internal European Ro-Ro flows for 2002 and 2013

Source: ISL based on EUROSTAT

The flows in the Atlantic region increased by 333% between 2002 and 2013, albeit from a relatively low base. Intra-regional volumes in the Black Sea fell by around 40% over the same period.101

Table 22. European Ro-Ro short sea flows for 2002 (in 1,000 tonnes)

*incoming traffic excluding Russia ** incoming traffic for Bulgaria and Romania only Note: Data for certain ports was not available for the year 2002; in these cases data for 2003 or 2004 have been used. Source: ISL based on EUROSTAT

101 Part of the traffic may have shifted to containers as this traffic has been increasing during the same period.

From… TotalTo… Atlantic Baltic Sea Black Sea Mediterr. North SeaAtlantic 164 3 32 275 474Baltic Sea* 0 43889 0 22 3445 47356Black Sea** 0 199 0 0 199Mediterranean 75 4 10 31815 352 32256North Sea 893 4852 0 415 63748 69908Total 1132 48748 209 32284 67820 150193


April, 2017 87

Table 23. European Ro-Ro short sea flows in 2008 (in 1,000 tonnes)

*incoming traffic excluding Russia ** incoming traffic for Bulgaria and Romania only Note: Data for certain ports was not available for the year 2002; in these cases data for 2003 or 2004 was included. Source: ISL based on EUROSTAT

Table 24. European Ro-Ro short sea flows for 2013 (in 1,000 tonnes)

Source: ISL based on EUROSTAT

5.1.5.3 Actual trade flows and geographical scope of projects

In summary, there was positive development in container and Ro-Ro flows - the most essential forms of SSS in the context of the MoS concept – over the 2002 to 2013 period. All maritime regions and their related corridors, except for the Black Sea, saw an increase in volumes during that period, albeit with different growth rates. The North Sea and the Mediterranean regions are the most important for container volumes, the North Sea and the Baltic Sea are the most significant regions for Ro-Ro transport flows (although the Mediterranean remains important).

The trade analysis shows that the vast majority of European container short sea flows have their origin and/or destination in the North Sea or the Mediterranean Sea. These two sea basins also account for a large proportion of European Ro-Ro short sea flows (North Sea has the highest flows, the Mediterranean Sea has the third highest). The Baltic Sea has the second highest European Ro-Ro short sea flows. The large flows of short sea traffic involving ports in the Mediterranean Sea are not reflected in the MoS projects funded (with the exception of ENPI and IPA). The high proportion of TEN-T projects funded in the Baltic Sea region is more attuned to the traffic flows, particularly when considering that parts of the North Sea region are included in the Baltic Sea MoS corridor.

The highest share of short sea shipping usually takes place between ports located in the same sea region. This is consistent with the geographical focus of the projects funded. For example, only six out 51 TEN-T projects appear to cover more than one sea region.

It is concluded that the geographical scope of the MoS projects partially corresponds to actual trade flows. In the Baltic Sea MoS corridor the proportion of TEN-T projects (53%; 27 out of 51 projects) corresponds quite well with its share of short sea flows (in 1,000 tonnes). Based on the data presented in Table 21 and 24 above, Baltic Sea

From… TotalTo… Atlantic Baltic Sea Black Sea Mediterr. North SeaAtlantic 213 23 0 27 440 703Baltic Sea* 2 53781 0 17 5450 59250Black Sea** 0 87 4 0 91Mediterranean 25 4 21 46417 223 46690North Sea 1264 6744 0 367 75259 83634Total 1504 60552 108 46832 81372 190368

From… TotalTo… Atlantic Baltic Sea Black Sea Mediterr. North SeaAtlantic 710 252 26 31 850 1869Baltic Sea* 22 52580 0 12 5326 57940Black Sea** 0 120 5 0 125Mediterranean 60 12 41 54228 189 54530North Sea 1108 6667 0 582 63240 71597Total 1900 59511 187 54858 69605 186061


April, 2017 88

ports alone account for 24% of incoming traffic (to Baltic Sea ports) and 28% of outgoing traffic (from Baltic Sea ports). However, the Baltic Sea MoS corridor also includes parts of the North Sea region, which accounts for 43% of incoming traffic and 38% of outgoing traffic (see Table 21 and 24). The opposite is true for the two Mediterranean corridors, whose share of short sea flows is much higher than their share of TEN-T projects. The Mediterranean Sea region accounts for 31% of incoming traffic and 29% of outgoing traffic (see Table 21 and 24) but only 8 (or 16%) TEN-T projects (although this corridor has benefited significantly from ENPI (4 out of 9 projects) and IPA projects (all identified projects)). The proportion of TEN-T projects largely corresponds with the short sea flows in the Western Europe MoS corridor, which covers the Atlantic sea region as well as parts of the North Sea region.

Notably, all 11 transport link projects funder under TEN-T have been implemented in the Baltic Sea (7) and Western Europe (4) MoS corridors.

Whilst the geographical scope of projects partially corresponds to trade flows (particularly in the Baltic Sea and Western Europe MoS corridors), the evidence points to a range of other factors influencing the geographical scope of projects. These include the legislative changes, previous cooperation/ existing partnerships and the way the calls for proposals were implemented in the different corridors (section 5.1.3).

5.1.6 (EQ 2.3A) Have the financing schemes (be it a single financial instrument or a mix of different instruments) been effective in terms of providing right incentives to participants and why?

MoS projects across all programmes have been funded through grants. EU funding has ranged from 20% (TEN-T) to 100% (ENPI) of the total eligible project costs. The level of co-funding provided by project beneficiaries has varied accordingly. Whilst most of the project beneficiaries consulted for this evaluation would have liked to have benefited from higher co-funding rates, it was also recognised that in the context of scarce public resources the rates available were probably appropriate.

More than 80% of the TEN-T MoS projects have included study components. These attract a higher co-financing rate (50%) than implementation (or works) components (30%). Around a quarter of the projects have been mixed (involving studies and works). This may simply reflect the needs of the project beneficiaries and the short sea shipping sector, but it may also reflect a tendency for projects to be designed to focus on study components.

Almost all project beneficiaries have used their own finances to fund the remainder of the project costs. In some cases, particularly for the Marco Polo projects, this financing has involved beneficiaries taking on loans. Two of the four Marco Polo MoS projects have also benefited from state aid. We have not been able to identify any MoS projects that have made use of the EIB funding instruments.

All projects have used a single EU funding instrument. It is not possible for the same MoS project to receive grants from more than one EU funding source. The only exception is financing from the TEN-T and Marco Polo programmes, which can be combined for complementary measures on a single maritime link (e.g. TEN-T for the infrastructure and facilities and Marco Polo for services). One such example is Atlantica Optimos (TEN-T) and Atlantica (Marco Polo). Both of these projects covered the link between Nantes St-Nazaire (France) and Vigo (Spain). Double funding of the same component is not allowed.

There are a number of examples where projects using other funding instruments have provided complementary support to a particular maritime link or port. For example, the EU Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund have complemented TEN-T funding in a few cases (e.g. Baltic Link Gdynia-Karlskrona, Karlshamn-Klaipeda and ADRIAMOS – see section 4 for further detail). Similarly, complementary projects have been implemented through the TEN-T programme and the IPA (e.g. AdriaticMos – see section 4). There are also examples of Interreg projects leading to TEN-T


April, 2017 89

applications. For example, the TEN-T Baltic Link Gdynia-Karlskrona project had its origins in two previous Interreg projects.

Whilst applications for funding have increased in recent years, particularly for TEN-T, it is difficult to say whether this is a result of the MoS concept evolving to better meet the needs of the SSS sector, of greater awareness regarding MoS funding opportunities or reduced access to alternative sources of funding. Stakeholder consultations suggest that it is a combination of these factors.

A number of changes have been made to the programmes to encourage participation. For example, in the Marco Polo programme action was taken in 2009 (applicable from the 2010 call) in response to concerns that it would not achieve its modal shift objectives. Adjustments were made to facilitate participation by small and micro enterprises, to lower the action eligibility thresholds, to increase the funding intensity and to simplify the programme’s implementation and administrative procedures. Other significant changes made to the programme (before the adoption of the Decision No. 923/2009), included the doubling of the funding intensity (2009 call onwards) from €1 to €2 per 500 tonne-kilometres (tkm)/ 25 vehicle-kilometres (vkm) and the transfer of management from DG MOVE to the Executive Agency for Competitiveness and Innovation (EACI) in 2008. The management of the programme was subsequently transferred from EACI to INEA (as of 1st January 2014). Three of the four Marco Polo projects were funded after the 2009 revisions came into effect.

The financing schemes and rates have been acknowledged by most project beneficiaries as being very useful, and often essential, for the implementation of the projects. In particular, the financing schemes have ensured transnational cooperation which in turn has led to common solutions.

Some consultees (including a European association, project beneficiaries (Marco Polo), SPCs and a Member State Focal Point) suggested that further modal shift could be promoted by incentivising logistic firms directly (e.g. through an Ecobonus-type system). An Ecobonus-type system was included as part of the Modal Shift action in the 2014 annual call for proposals within the Freight Transport Services priority under the CEF. This gave truck operators the opportunity to receive a refund of up to 20% of the cost of sea transport where cargo is shifted from road to sea. This did not, however, result in any successful proposals.

In summary, it is evident that MoS project activity has increased over time and that the funding requested by eligible projects has far exceeded the budgets in the multi-annual calls for proposals (at least for TEN-T). This suggests that the financing schemes have been effective in terms of providing the right incentives to participants. MoS projects across all funding programmes have been funded through grants, with varying degrees of co-funding from project beneficiaries (EU funding has ranged from 20% (TEN-T) to 100% (ENPI) of the total project costs). For TEN-T much of the project activity has been geared towards interventions with a higher co-financing rate (i.e. studies – 50%). This may indicate that the lower co-financing rates associated with implementation (works) projects have been less effective in providing the right incentives to participants, although there are also other factors that have influenced this trend (e.g. the need for Member State pre-approval and the limited duration of the joint calls for proposals, particularly in the Mediterranean).

5.1.7 (EQ 2.3B) What has been the leverage of EU funding?

As described in section 4, this research has identified an overall population of 97 MoS projects for the period up to 2013. In total these projects accounted for more than €1.9 billion of activity, including an EU contribution in excess of around €0.5 billion (see Table 15). This signifies a gross leverage of EU funding amounting to €1.4 billion.

The leverage of EU funding is largely determined by the general rules for the granting of Community financial aid as laid down by the relevant regulations. For example, for the TEN-T projects the EU contribution is determined on the basis of the type of


April, 2017 90

actions being supported. The maximum co-funding rates for projects under the TEN-T Motorways of the Sea calls are as follows:

studies: 50 % of the eligible cost of studies, irrespective of the project of common interest concerned

works:

− a maximum of 20 % of the eligible cost of the works for priority projects

− a maximum of 30 % for cross-border sections of priority projects provided that the Member States concerned have given the Commission all the necessary guarantees regarding the financial viability of the project and the timetable for carrying it out

start-up aid related to capital costs for cross-border sections of Motorways of the Sea projects: 30% of two years of depreciation of the eligible capital cost in accordance with Art. 12a (5) of the TEN-T Guidelines.

More than three quarters (76%) of the MoS TEN-T funding has been allocated to mixed (studies and works) projects (€142.4 million) and studies (€124.3 million). Works projects have accounted for just under a quarter of projects (24% or €86.5 million). This is somewhat inconsistent with the allocation of budgets stipulated in the work programmes (for example 2010, 2012 and 2013). The work programmes highlight that implementation projects are a priority and that studies should be limited to 20% of the overall budget for the calls. The indicative limit for studies taking the form of pilot actions was set at 30% of the overall budget for the calls.

The €353.1 million TEN-T contribution (actual) has leveraged an additional €1.1 billion in public and private funding (gross). As such, the MoS projects have generated an additional €3 (gross) for every TEN-T €1 invested. Overall, the TEN-T contribution has accounted for around a quarter (24%) of the total project costs.

In the Marco Polo programme the maximum EU contribution was limited to 35% of eligible costs. The total eligible cost of the projects for the three completed projects was €232.0 million102. The EU contribution was €11.4 million103. The actual EU contribution has been determined on the basis of the modal shift achieved, which partly explains why the actual EU contribution is slightly lower than the maximum EU contribution specified in the grant agreement. In the case of FRES MOS, no EU contribution was received due to state aid and the rule of not financing more than 35% of eligible costs.

Other non-financial leverage effects (e.g. in terms of capacity building and increasing cohesion) are covered in the EU added value section (5.6).

A number of MoS funded projects have also resulted in follow-up projects or initiatives that are funded through other sources. Such examples are presented in the response to EQ 5.1 (section 5.5.1).

5.1.8 (EQ 2.4A) Has this range of beneficiaries been optimal for the achievement of the objectives of the MoS policy?

As described in section 4, the beneficiaries vary across the different funding programmes.

For the TEN-T programme, a large proportion of projects have involved port authorities/ operators, maritime transport operators / shipping companies and

102 Final amount of accepted eligible costs. The total eligible costs according to the grant agreement was €474.9 million. Source: INEA 103 Final amount of accepted EU contribution. The maximum EU contribution according to the grant agreement was €16.5 million. Source: INEA


April, 2017 91

state level ministries, administration and agencies. Road and rail transport operators have been involved in a small number of projects (all studies). Academic and research centres limited involvement in the TEN-T MoS projects.

The beneficiaries of Marco Polo MoS projects have all been maritime or multimodal transport operators.

Most Interreg projects have included port authorities/operators and regional and local authorities in the project partnerships, with the latter reflecting the regional nature of many projects. Just over half have included academic and research centres and other businesses.

ENPI projects have involved academic and research centres, specialised consultancy/ engineering companies and port authorities. Transport operators were involved in only one project. This reflects in part the nature of the projects and their focus on adopting good practice, developing new systems and masterplans (a stage before transport operators would be involved in practical applications).

Most IPA projects have involved port authorities/operators, multimodal transport operators and academic and research centres. Regional and local authorities, as well as state level ministries/ departments/ agencies have been involved in half the IPA projects.

RTD FP projects have involved multi-national European consortia from industry, ports, national authorities, customers as well as, academic bodies, research centres, and specialised consultancy which reflect the research, innovation and technological development focus of the projects. Port authorities/ operators, maritime/ multimodal transport operators and other businesses have been involved in more than half of the projects.

Each of the funding programmes are discussed separately below.

Optimality is not easily judged but in the sub-sections below we explore the influence and relevance of beneficiaries in relation to the objectives of the MoS policy (see intervention logic in section 1) and/ or type of projects funded.

5.1.8.1 TEN-T programme

TEN-T MoS funding has funded projects that involved a wide range of beneficiaries, including port authorities/ operators (31 of 51 projects), state level ministries, administration and agencies (20 of 51 projects) and maritime transport operators / shipping companies (19 of 51 projects). By contrast, road and rail transport operators have been involved in very few projects (2 and 3 projects respectively – studies only). Academic and research centres have had limited involvement in the TEN-T MoS projects (7 of 51 projects – including 6 studies). Both public and private sector beneficiaries have been involved in TEN-T MoS projects.

Whilst it is difficult to determine whether the beneficiaries have been optimal for the achievement of the objectives of the MoS policy and/ or the type of projects, it would appear that projects have generally involved a suitable mix of beneficiaries and partners given the type of projects funded. An important exception is that road and rail transport operators have not been involved to any great extent (Figure 23). Given the modal shift and intermodality objectives of MoS, greater involvement from road and rail transport operators would have been desirable.

The positive conclusion on the mix of project partners is supported by project beneficiary consultations which indicate that project partnerships have been selected to optimise the project objectives and/ or the wider MoS objectives. Project beneficiaries also noted that previous working relationships and collaborations have been important in terms of the selection of project partners. They reported a good balance of public and private stakeholders being involved in the projects.


April, 2017 92

Almost all of the project beneficiaries reported that they were able to involve all the desired organisations and Member States. The WINMOS project wanted to involve Russian partners in the development of the IBNet, but such cooperation with third countries was not foreseen under the TEN-T regulation. It is possible under the new CEF regulation.

Figure 23. Beneficiaries and implementing bodies

Source: ICF analysis, based on INEA data

In addition to the official project partners, some projects have also been supported by additional partners. For example, the Kvarken Multimodal Link project was supported by 30-40 organisations that participated in various meetings but were not compensated by the EU. The supporting group included SMEs such as tourist organisations and other small businesses and interest groups.

The majority of projects have involved partners from two or three Member States (around two-thirds of TEN-T MoS projects). A few projects involved larger partnership drawn from more Member States (e.g. AnNa (14 Member States), MonaLisa 2.0 (9) and TrainMoS (8)). According to a few of the project beneficiaries and Member State Focal Points, it is desirable for the future development of MoS that certain projects (particularly those that concern wider benefits) involve beneficiaries from all Member States (at least those with ports). This is because certain wider benefit projects are relevant to all Member States with ports and thus may lead to greater European cohesion, as well as better EU value added. Larger partnerships involving more Member States are, however, also associated with greater project management challenges.

A few project beneficiaries and Member State Focal Points have suggested that national maritime administrations are in a good position to lead TEN-T MoS projects. This is because they are closely connected to maritime transport stakeholders (including the private sector) whilst also having good knowledge of maritime policy.


April, 2017 93

Some concerns were raised about potential conflict of interest when organisations involved in the assessment and selection of projects (e.g. through the regional tasks forces) are also involved in project delivery. This has been the case in a few projects.

Analysis shows that the pool of project partners has been quite concentrated. This has not affected the appropriateness of the range of beneficiaries, but has limited the number of organisations benefitting from funding. Additional awareness raising may be required to reach a wider pool of beneficiaries.

5.1.8.2 Marco Polo

Funding for Marco Polo MoS has been accessed directly by the operators of maritime freight services, including Transfennica, GLD Atlantique, Logistica Suardiaz, LD Lines and Brittany Ferries. Grimaldi Logistica was initially involved in the FRES MOS project but later withdrew from the partnership. The focus on such maritime transport operators is appropriate given the objectives of the projects. This view is shared by the project beneficiaries. One of the Marco Polo MoS projects mentioned difficulties in including a third country partner (the port of Tangier in Morocco) in the project. Whilst such cooperation with third countries could take place, the costs incurred in third countries would not be eligible for funding according to the rules of the Marco Polo programme.

5.1.8.3 ENPI

Given the technical assistance nature of the ENPI projects it is appropriate that the project beneficiaries have primarily been academic and research centres, specialised consultancy / engineering companies and port authorities. The Regional Programme National Contact Points have often been consulted to identify appropriate project partners (often port authorities).

The project beneficiaries reported that the two ENPI MoS reference projects had the right balance between public and private organisations. This has been considered an important feature by both the project beneficiaries and EC services. One project beneficiary noted that public and private sector organisations have provided complementary inputs to the project. For example, public sector organisations were mainly active in trade facilitation whilst private sector organisations were the main source of information on problems and malfunctions in the transportation chain.

5.1.8.4 Interreg

The detailed evidence on Interreg programmes is limited to the StratMoS project. This involved 30 organisations:

12 regional and local authorities

3 port authorities/ operators

1 multimodal transport operator/ logistics (incl. terminals)

3 state level ministries, departments and agencies

1 specialised consultancy / engineering company

3 academic and research centres

7 other businesses

The project lead reported that the range of beneficiaries was appropriate for the achievement of the project objectives, although the balance between public agencies and private organisations could have been better. For example, greater involvement and engagement from private organisations would increase the likelihood of the results being taken forward at the end of the project.


April, 2017 94

5.1.9 (EQ 2.4B) How did SMEs benefit from the implementation of MoS?

SMEs have been involved both as lead beneficiaries and project partners. SMEs were, in some cases, also involved as suppliers of works and services for MoS funded activities. The lack of comprehensive monitoring data on SME involvement means that it has not been possible to provide a full mapping of SME partners.

None of the project beneficiaries consulted raised concerns about the involvement of SMEs. Most of the transport and trade/commerce attaches that responded to the written consultation (n=8) agreed that SMEs have been encouraged to participate in Motorways of the Sea projects. Respondents highlighted the dissemination of information about calls, clear priorities in calls for proposals, the MoS Helpdesk and TEN-T days as important aspects that encouraged and assisted participation from SMEs.

The views from the SMEs (n=7) themselves are mixed. Four said that SMEs have been encouraged to participate, particularly by Short Sea Promotion Centres and national ministries. It was, however, acknowledged that more could be done to disseminate information and provide technical assistance. Three did not think that SMEs had been encouraged to participate, but did not elaborate further on this.

In summary, it would appear that SMEs have benefited from projects either directly or indirectly. SME involvement has - according to transport and trade/commerce attaches and SMEs themselves - been supported through the dissemination of information about MoS (by SPCs and national ministries) and associated calls for projects, the MoS Helpdesk and the TEN-T days. To raise SME involvement a few SME project beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries called for further dissemination of information (e.g. via national ship registers and ship owners’ associations) and the provision of additional assistance on how to access and manage EU funding.

5.1.10 (EQ 2.5) What have been the main difficulties of realising the projects?

Whilst most project beneficiaries reported that their projects were implemented relatively smoothly, a number of difficulties have been mentioned. Each funding programme is considered separately in the analysis below.


The 18 final reports provided suggest that a large proportion of activities have been fully completed. Six projects (four mixed and two studies) did not complete the planned activities. The three projects (all mixed) that had the most difficulties in realising the planned project activities were:

High Quality Rail and Intermodal Nordic Corridor Königslinie (2008-EU-21010-P): In this project the beneficiaries asked for the action to be suspended due to exceptional circumstances resulting from dramatic changes in the framework and market conditions. However, as the beneficiaries requested a suspension of at least three years, and the end of the budget period 2007-2013 was approaching, the TEN-T Executive Agency decided to terminate the project completely. The beneficiaries accepted the agency’s decision.

The Baltic Sea Hub and Spokes Project (2010-EU-21108-P): The incomplete projects activities reflect changes to the scope of ICT solutions, a decision not to implement the Marselis Tunnel section at the Port of Aarhus (due to funding difficulties) and some security measures not being completed at the Port of Tallinn (delayed due to new risk assessment which required additional information gathering). These changes did not have a significant impact on the achievement of the project objectives.

Motorway of the Sea Rostock-Gedser (2010-EU-21107-P): The secondary berths at Gedser and Rostock were postponed beyond the end date of the project. The project also cancelled / postponed the delivery of studies on


April, 2017 95

alternative ship fuels and IT/ITS. These changes did not have a significant impact on the achievement of the project objectives.

A few project beneficiaries report difficulties relating to external factors such as changes in oil prices and economic trends. For example, falling oil prices particularly affected projects that were concerned with environmental performance activities as such solutions became less cost-competitive to implement.

Figure 24. Overview of activity completion

Source: Based on the final project reports provided by INEA

A few project beneficiaries reported difficulties in delivering certain activities on time due to delays and / or difficulties in completing the task by partners / contractors (e.g. ship builders, engine manufacturers, consultants, etc.). For example:

‘The project had to cope with a delayed and incomplete delivery of two ships which became an obstacle for offering the envisaged upgraded transport service.’

‘We had to cope with the fact that the consultant who was commissioned to carry out the study had difficulties in fulfilling the task. Since a change of consultant would have led to additional problems – including legal – in a very tight time schedule (e.g. due to tendering procedures), the consultant was not changed.’

A few projects also faced challenges in ensuring compliance with national procurement rules. ‘National regulations are often more bureaucratic than EU regulations, and this causes delays in implementation when all laws are followed. It is also difficult to plan for this, as needs for procurement occur during the implementation of the project.’

Communication, sharing of sensitive data and coordination challenges have also been cited by many project beneficiaries, particularly in cases where several actors and institutions were/are involved. For example, a couple of projects reported a resistance and unwillingness to share sensitive data between ports. Another project mentioned that the lack of harmonisation and common terminology between different countries, as well as different ports in the same country, made it difficult to initially establish a


April, 2017 96

clear line of communication between the different actors and institutions in order to establish goals and a path to follow in the project.

A couple of projects also reported difficulties resulting from the adoption of new technologies and processes, which tend to have a higher degree of unpredictability. This was particularly the case for pilot actions. Some project beneficiaries reported difficulties relating to administrative and regulatory burdens incurred by maritime transport. Difficulties also arose as a result of differences in the organisation of the maritime transport sector in different countries.

A specific problem encountered by the TrainMoS project was getting its teaching programmes recognised by all the Member States involved.

A couple of beneficiaries reported limited flexibility within the projects in responding to the problems encountered. For example, one beneficiary mentioned that they had asked for a small change to the environmental upgrade solution proposed as, during the course of the project, a new solution for a certain task appeared to be more economically viable. The proposed adjustment to the project plan was not approved because this solution was not described in the proposal and it would constitute a deviation from the initial scope of the project, to the extent that it could put into question the award of the grant. As a result, the original solution was applied in the project.

The general view is that such difficulties have not significantly affected the achievements of the overall project objectives (the only exception being the ‘High Quality Rail and Intermodal Nordic Corridor Königslinie’ project).

5.1.10.2 Marco Polo

The financial and economic crisis was a major factor in limiting the uptake of the Marco Polo programme. It also affected the conditions for implementing the projects. For example, freight volumes fell sharply which in turn resulted in lower than expected outcomes.

According to the final reports of the completed projects, the following challenges have been encountered:

For Ro-Ro Past France, the lower than expected achievements were attributed to the financial crisis and the high bunkering prices for fuel. The high bunkering prices for fuel relative to diesel fuel prices made it difficult for the service to compete with road transport.

The FRES MOS project was quite successful in terms of operations and market demand but was not deemed economically viable and stopping the state aid triggered the operator's decision to withdraw the service.

The Gulfstream.MOS project reported several problems during the implementation such as economic crisis adversely affecting the import of industrial products in Spain and Portugal, the devaluation of the British Pound (GBP) and the increase in fuel prices during a substantial period of the project.

The FRES MOS project and the Atlantica project were adversely affected by the decision to indefinitely suspend plans to introduce an ecotax on HGVs in France.

The fall in oil prices adversely affected maritime freight services as it discouraged a shift from road to sea. The Atlantica project has been severely affected by the delays in the state aid decision.

5.1.10.3 ENPI

The ENPI MoS projects consulted faced some challenges in obtain the collaboration of third countries. Stakeholders mention some difficulties in ensuring the full engagement of third countries. Political instability and conflict between countries has


April, 2017 97

also made cooperation more difficult. For example, Tunisia and Egypt dropped out of the MEDA MOS project due to the volatile political conditions in those countries.

5.1.10.4 Interreg

The lack of coordinating functions for MoS within DG Regio means that it is not possible to provide an overall assessment of MoS projects funded under Interreg. In StratMoS, the Interreg reference project selected for this study, the most important challenge was to get private partners actively involved in the project. Greater involvement and engagement from private organisations would increase the likelihood of the project results being taken forward beyond the end of the project. The private sector organisations were difficult to engage as they needed to justify their involvement based on the direct relevance and value of the project activities to their organisation. This is not always a straightforward task and may have led to some hesitation among some of the potential private partners.

5.1.11 (EQ 2.6) What have been the improvements in terms of regularity, frequency, efficiency and flexibility of the MoS routes and the connections between ports and hinterland?

Whilst virtually no newly created MoS routes have been established in European sea-basins in recent years104, existing links have been supported through new infrastructure and additional services. In assessing the effect of such investments in terms of regularity, frequency, efficiency and flexibility of existing MoS routes the evaluation has relied heavily on stakeholder consultations and the reference projects.


79% of project beneficiaries (TEN-T) and 60% of Member State Focal Points and Short Sea Promotion Centres for Shortsea Shipping and Motorways of the Sea responding to the written consultation considered their project or the MoS concept as a whole to have contributed towards the improvements in terms of regularity, frequency, efficiency and flexibility of the MoS routes (see Figure 17 and 18).

Whilst it has not been possible to obtain quantitative evidence to back up such claims, some of the project beneficiaries provided further details on why they consider their project to have contributed towards improvements in terms of regularity, frequency, efficiency and flexibility of the MoS routes. For example:

The ADRIAMOS project is considered to have improved the frequency, efficiency and flexibility of MoS traffic through the dedicated Ro-Ro terminal in Venice and the future construction of a freight village in Igoumentisa.

Atlantica OptiMoS is expected to improve existing maritime links, as well as better integrating the maritime links into the global logistic chain.

Business to Motorways of the Sea (B2MOS) has contributed to improving MoS efficiency and flexibility in many different ways. For example, relevant results are being obtained from the pilots of the electronic archives initiative. According to the project lead, the economic benefits of the electronic archive initiative are numerous and its spillover effects affect many different companies in the port logistic sector. It is estimated that each B2MOS partner will save more than 6,500 hours annually just in time otherwise employed opening e-mails and attached documents, printing them, picking documents up from printers and archiving them.

The link between Helsinki and Tallinn has become more efficient as a result of the TWIN-PORT project.

104 European Commission (2015) Analysis of recent trends in EU shipping and analysis and support to improve the competitiveness of short sea shipping


April, 2017 98

In the Green Bridge project, the flexibility of the service was improved by enabling the use of all six TT-Line ships on both services i.e. Trelleborg-Rostock and Trelleborg-Travemünde (Lübeck).

IBUK has led to increased service, more frequency of service, and flexibility for larger containers and more equipment to handle specialised cargo primarily refrigerated units.

A few projects mentioned environmental efficiency improvements as an important aspect of this objective (e.g. through new LNG engine technology in the BalticSO2lution project and planned facilities for LNG bunkering in several ports through the LNG Baltic Sea Port II project).

The connection between port and hinterland is recognised as a pre-requisite for efficient multi-modal transport and for the full development of SSS. However, since its launch in 2001, the MoS does not seem to have been able to materially improve connections between ports and hinterland. This is also reflected in the lack of involvement in projects by road and rail transport operators. As of 2010, the lack of efficient connections was still considered as a key obstacle for SSS by many authors (Medda & Trujillo, 2010 and Bonne, 2010). The MoS European Coordinator highlighted better connections between ports and hinterland as a key priority for MoS in his 2013 report. Similar views have been put forward by the SPCs interviewed for this project.

The situation seems to have improved in the last couple of years as a number of MoS projects clearly integrate the improvement of the port-hinterland connections in their objectives. For example, two initiatives under the B2MOS project were dedicated to promoting rail transport for the connections between ports and their hinterlands (Initiative 2 - Simplification of rail transit procedures and Initiative 7 - Coordinated shunting operations in railway stations and port rail terminals). The ITS Adriatic multi-port gateway project has contributed towards this objective by investing in ICT systems to improve interconnections with other transport modes.

5.1.11.2 Marco Polo programme

Improving the regularity, frequency, efficiency and flexibility of MoS routes was a core objective for Marco Polo MoS projects. Financial support from the Marco Polo II programme resulted in the development and establishment of new and / or more frequent services. For example, Gulfstream.MoS provided a direct Ro-Pax service connecting the south of England and the north of the Spain, with three return crossings per week. The service calls at Portsmouth (UK) and the Spanish ports of Bilbao (twice a week) and Santander (once a week). The project finished in March 2015 and the service continues to run.

Similarly, Ro-Ro Past France started and operated a new regular service between the port of Zeebrugge in Belgium and Bilbao. The project started in 2007, with two vessels providing three round trips per week. A third vessel was added in 2009, increasing the frequency of the service to five times a week. However, due to lower than expected demand the third vessel and the two additional sailings were cancelled after around six months. In 2012, the service was reduced further to two round trips per week. The service continued operating for two years but as the services continued to make a financial loss the operator decided to stop the service.

FRES MOS resulted in a new service between Gijon (Spain) and Saint Nazaire (France), offering three round trips per week. The service operated for four years but was suspended in September 2014. The project lead highlighted the failure by the French Government to introduce an ecotax on heavy goods vehicles as an important reason for suspending the service. However, the economically viable of the services was also severely affected by the end of state aid.


April, 2017 99

The fourth Marco Polo MoS project started in November 2015, following delays caused by the state aid decision, and is expected to develop a Ro-Ro service between the port of Vigo (Spain) and the port of Nantes-St. Nazaire (France).

In summary, as only one of the three completed projects has managed to sustain the services, the Marco Polo MoS projects have only marginally improved the regularity, frequency, efficiency and flexibility of the MoS routes.

5.1.12 (EQ 2.7) To what extent have the administrative procedures, which apply to maritime transport in the EU, hindered or aided the realisation and exploitation of MoS routes?

The European maritime transport sector is subject to an array of administrative and regulatory protocols, in line with EU, national and international legislation. These procedures cover a large number of different domains including safety and security, immigration, taxation, waste, human health protection and veterinary and plant protection.

There is widely held perception among stakeholders consulted for this study that administrative procedures (including customs laws) are: often complex, onerous and duplicative; reduce the competitiveness of the short sea shipping sector through increased costs and delays; and are particularly disadvantageous to SMEs. As administrative procedures in the land transport sector are generally perceived to be less burdensome, there have been calls from European trade and industry associations105, and other stakeholders, for administrative simplification and harmonisation in the short sea shipping sector. The quantity and diversity of cargo entering and leaving the EU has also grown over time, increasing the need for scrutiny whilst also placing pressure on ports to cut red tape and improve their efficiency to cope with the increased flow of goods.

Key issues are:

A lack of harmonisation of reporting formalities in EU Member State ports, including differences in reporting requirements within the same country. Alongside EU legislation and international agreements, national authorities have their own legal frameworks, procedures and electronic or manual reporting systems. These divergent practices result in vessels having to provide information in varying formats to different authorities and via different electronic and manual systems. Time-consuming manual reporting systems are still used. There are also language-related issues, with ports in some Member States not accepting documentation in languages other than their own.

Concerns relating to the duplication of information requirements. Public authorities require vessels departing from ports to provide documentation and information relating to different fields, although similar information is often requested from vessels again by authorities in destination ports. Information can also sometimes be requested both before arrival and on arrival. Limited data sharing and interoperability between authorities results in inefficient use of administrative resources, adds to costs and delays to traders and increases likelihood of errors.

Certain administrative exemptions are provided for vessels which are registered as regular shipping services to reduce burdens on regular operators. Nevertheless there are still concerns regarding the process and time required for registration and that the notification period for adding new ports to routes is lengthy. The EU has implemented a scheme to ensure faster registration and

105 The “Athens Declaration” A Year On: Exploiting the Full Potential of Short Sea Shipping (April 2015)


April, 2017 100

flexibility in the operation of regular shipping services as part of its Blue Belt Initiative.

With a view to addressing some of these inefficiencies, the EU adopted the Reporting Formalities Directive 65/2010 to simplify and harmonise procedures by establishing standard electronic transmission of information and streamlining reporting formalities for ships calling at EU ports. An important requirement of the Directive is the introduction of national single windows for the submission of information. This allows vessel operators to avoid the need to interface with multiple parties by providing information to a single designated body to meet all reporting-related regulatory requirements. The deadline for meeting the obligations of the Reporting Formalities Directive was June 2015. An evaluation of the legislation is ongoing with a view to revise the Directive.

Despite the measures taken by the EU in recent years, a number of European trade and industry associations106 believe the administrative and regulatory procedures applied in the EU maritime transport sector remain a significant barrier to further development of the maritime freight transport and SSS sector. They argue that the complexity of administrative procedures slow down operations for ships which enter and leave EU ports, increase costs and delay loading and unloading operations. This does not help to make maritime transport an attractive means of transport compared to the other transport modes (most notably, road).

A small number of MoS projects, including AnNa and B2MOS, aim to address some of these issues. For example, the AnNa (Advanced National Networks for Administrations) project has been concerned with developing national Maritime Single Windows in line with EC Directive 2010/65/EU.

5.2 Administrative effectiveness and efficiency of Motorways of the Sea

A number of coordination mechanisms have been established by the Commission to help improve the performance of MoS. For example, five MoS Task Forces (for the Baltic Sea, the North Sea, the Atlantic, the Eastern Mediterranean and the Western Mediterranean Sea) were established following the Ministerial Conference on Motorways of the Sea in January 2006 (although the Baltic Sea MoS Task Force had been in operation since 2003). The Task Forces brought together the Member States with the aim of better coordinating the planning and development of Motorways of the Sea at the local level. They also identified through the development of MoS masterplans and evaluated joint project proposals through calls for proposals.

In September 2007 the Commission appointed a European Coordinator to support the implementation of Motorways of the Sea. The European Coordinator produces annual reports that:

detail and evaluate the progress achieved by Motorways of the Sea projects that have received financial assistance under the TEN-T;

report on the Coordinator’s work throughout the year in promotion of Motorways of the Sea; and

make recommendations for the further development of Motorways of the Sea.

The TEN-T Executive Agency was established in 2006 and was responsible for organising the TEN-T Calls and evaluating project proposals. It was also responsible for managing the projects that were awarded funding. The Executive Agency for Competitiveness and Innovation (EACI, now EASME) was established in 2004 and managed the Marco Polo programme. In January 2014 responsibility of managing the

106 Ibid.


April, 2017 101

TEN-T and Marco Polo programmes was transferred to the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA). INEA is currently responsible for implementing the following EU programmes:

Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) 2014-20

Parts of Horizon 2020 – Smart, green, and integrated transport + Secure, clean and efficient energy

Legacy programmes: TEN-T and Marco Polo 2007-2013

INEA was also responsible for the Motorways of the Sea ‘one stop help desk’ (http://www.mos-helpdesk.eu/) launched in 2010 to provide information and a better understanding of how the TEN-T and Marco Polo programmes. When the Marco Polo II programme came to an end the help desk was discontinued and replaced by a new support tool established within the CEF instrument for potential MoS stakeholders.

DG MOVE also organises bi-annual ‘Focal Points’ meetings of experts on Motorways of the Sea and short sea shipping appointed by each Member State. These are the main fora for the European Commission, Member States and stakeholders to discuss policy issues relevant to Motorways of the Sea and short sea shipping, including evaluation of existing policies, and communication and feedback on what is in the process of being developed.

Cluster meetings have been organised for several years in each of the Motorways of the Sea areas (e.g. in Genoa and Aarhus in 2011). The objectives of these meetings included creating synergies between the MoS projects; sharing of experiences; and finding future partnerships.

Motorways of the Sea conferences have been arranged by the Commission in Gothenburg (November 2014), Venice (March 2015) and Liverpool (May 2015). These conferences each focused on one of the three MoS priorities and have allowed projects to present and share their results and experiences. They have also been useful for networking and discussing new project ideas.

There is no formal coordination mechanism for MoS projects across all funding routes. Projects funded under ENPI now come under the management of DG NEAR (ENP and DG DEVCO in the past) and Interreg under DG REGIO.

The subsections below evaluate the effectiveness of these coordination mechanisms in terms of:

the selection and funding of projects raising awareness among potential participants ensuring coherence/complementarity with national/regional projects/ funds/

policy

5.2.1 (EQ 2.8A) How has the establishment of a coordination mechanism (including five task forces, four corridors, a European coordinator, Commission services, executive agencies) helped to improve the performance of MoS in particular to: selecting and funding projects?

The coordination mechanisms mentioned above have primarily been involved in the identification and selection of projects under the TEN-T programme and the Marco Polo programme. The evidence shows that the coordination mechanism, particularly the executive agencies and the five task forces, has helped improve the selection and funding of TEN-T MoS and Marco Polo projects, and raised the profile of MoS more generally. The coordination mechanism has helped to promote good practice and awareness of specific project activity, generate project ideas and provide critical challenge to projects the appraisal and selection of projects. Interreg, ENPI, RTD and IPA projects have not benefitted from a similar coordination mechanism.


April, 2017 102

Further information on how the coordination mechanism has supported the selection and funding of projects under TEN-T and Marco Polo is provided below.


TEN-T MoS projects have been selected through calls for proposals launched annually by DG MOVE and, as of 2006, the Executive Agency (TEN-T EA and then INEA). The evaluation and selection of project proposals have been undertaken by the Commission (DG MOVE), with the assistance of the Executive Agency and independent external experts. The selection criteria for each call have been set out in the relevant work programmes and call texts. Generally, the selection criteria relate to:

Table 25. Selection criteria for MoS actions under TEN-T

Selection criteria Main elements considered

The relevance of the project in relation to the TEN-T priorities, transport policy objectives and EU/regional added value.

Degree of integration of the Action into amultimodal transport chain, e.g. informationsystems and hinterland connections linking to thevarious modes of transport and the transportservices

Evidence that the Action would develop a new orimprove an existing maritime link(s),predominantly focussing on freight transport.

For Actions having wider benefits, confirmation ofthe clear relevance for the implementation of MoS;

Degree of EU/regional added value of the proposedAction.

For the maritime link, the letters of supportsubmitted by transport operators should reflectproperly their involvement in the Action anddemonstrate the Action's viability. This may rangefrom a direct involvement as a beneficiary offinancial aid (in which case no letter is needed), toa supportive involvement without direct financialimplications for the operator(s). In the latter case,the operator(s) should prove that it will collaboratewith other members of the MoS consortium todeliver the expected outcome of the Action, i.e. setup new or improve the existing transportconnections. The support letters, presented mostpreferably as letters of intent, should state clearlythe operator's firm, explicit and crediblecommitment to the project

Where a proposal is extended to a neighbouringcountry (ies), it should be demonstrated that thiscountry (ies) is committed to the Action (i.e.signature of an authorised representative(s) of thatcountry (ies) at national level).

The maturity of the project – in terms of viability of the new or improved transport service, sufficiently mature pilot actions and readiness to remove identified bottlenecks across the

Viability of the new or improved transport service,substantiated through relevant analyses on freightflows, demand, business plans, etc. Data sourcesshould be specified.

For pilot actions, demonstration that the Action is


April, 2017 103

Selection criteria Main elements considered

transport chain. sufficiently mature to be put into the pre-implementation phase.

Demonstration of concrete plans and theirreadiness to remove identified bottlenecksthroughout the transport chain – in hinterlands,ports, and maritime link(s).

The estimated impact – on modal shift, efficiency and effectiveness, competition and the environment.

Impact of the Action on modal shift: estimates ofmodal shift until 2025 should be provided(applicants are advised to use the modal shiftcalculator available onhttp://ec.europa.eu/transport/marcopolo/calls/2010docs_en.htm).

For Actions having wider benefits, demonstration ofthe degree of impact on the MoS operations.

Contribution of the foreseen activities to improvedefficiency and effectiveness of the transport chain(on the specific corridor), in particular compared toroad transport.

Impact of the proposed transport services oncompeting transport services and ports in the samegeographical areas.

Impact on the reduction of externalities, inparticular environmental impact.

The quality of the project - appropriateness of the involved participants and the mechanisms put in place to monitor the impact.

Appropriateness of the number and nature ofinvolved participants in relation to the Action'sobjectives and credibility of commitments,including involvement of relevant actors andstakeholders.

Presentation of mechanisms put in place to monitorthe impact of the Action during and after itsimplementation.

Source: Calls for proposals - projects in the field of Motorways of the Sea (MoS), 2009-2013

In addition to the above selection criteria, the work programmes set out the general and specific objectives and priorities for each of Motorways of the Sea calls that the prospective projects had to conform to. Whilst the overall objectives, priorities and geographical areas have been largely consistent for the Motorways of the Sea priority projects, as defined in the TEN-T guidelines, the specific objectives of individual work programmes have included some variations.

For example, in 2009, the Multi-Annual Work Programme stated that ’project proposals should focus on the facilities and infrastructure that constitute the network of Motorways of the Sea in the framework of a door-to-door concept. They may also include study parts preparing for the implementation of later phases of the projects. The proposed projects should reduce road congestion through modal shift and/or increase accessibility of peripheral and island regions.’

Since 2010, the work programmes have highlighted opportunities to address environmental challenges and supporting ICT infrastructure and applications (through wider benefit actions). For example, in the 2012 and 2013 MoS Multi-Annual Work


April, 2017 104

Programmes, priority was given to actions that contribute to addressing the environmental challenges faced by the short sea shipping sector, in particular in view of the requirements with respect to the implementation of the requirements of Annex VI of the IMO MARPOL Convention (Ships trading in designated emission control areas will have to use on board fuel oil with a sulphur content of no more than 0.10% from 1 January 2015, against the limit of 1.00% in effect up until 31 December 2014).

In respect of ICT infrastructure and applications, the work programmes specify that they will support projects that facilitate integration of the sea and the land legs or support wider benefits. This includes ICT actions that support the deployment of interoperable solutions that enable efficient information exchange between all actors involved in co-modal transport processes (e.g. new technologies, public body driven single windows as well as simplification of administrative procedures in ports).

R&D has not been eligible for support under the TEN-T programme. Rather, the objectives of studies taking the form of pilot actions have been to support the introduction of new technologies, prototypes or innovative concepts and to prepare for their future deployment. The focus has been on addressing wider benefit subjects, developing innovative infrastructure and facilities and developing operational partnerships.

A list of proposals recommended for funding is prepared by DG MOVE with the support of the Executive Agency, taking into account the opinion of the external experts. Successful applicants are then invited by the Agency to enter into negotiations on the basis of which, if agreement is reached, individual Commission Decisions are established to support individual projects.

In line with Article 13(4) of the TEN-T Guidelines, implementation projects (works) have to be evaluated and pre-selected through a public call for tenders organised by the Member States concerned. In the case of the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, joint calls were open between 2009 and 2013. This meant that project proposals could be submitted to the relevant Member States at any time during this period. The Member States normally required about three months for the internal evaluation of the projects. Some coordination was therefore required to ensure that the projects that were selected at the national level fitted with the time schedule for the relevant EU call. Calls for proposals in the Mediterranean area were more limited with joint calls for proposals for Motorways of the Sea projects were only open from May 2009 until November 2009. Up to 2013 no pure implementation projects (works) were funded in the Mediterranean. Similarly, mixed projects (studies and works) in the Mediterranean were limited to the ADRIAMOS project.

With regard to evaluation of projects at the Member State level, one of the Ministries consulted report that they have made use of the ‘Evaluation criteria and checklist for proposals’ which was developed by the MoS North Sea Task Force.

The selection process for TEN-T programme projects is described in Figure 25.


April, 2017 105

Figure 25. TEN-T programme call and selection process

Source: INEA

A small number of Ministries/Transport Attachés (n=6) responded to a written questionnaire which asked whether the coordination mechanisms helped to improve the performance of Motorways of the Sea in terms of selecting and funding the most appropriate projects. Most respondents agreed that they had. The European Coordinator was considered to be less important to the selection and funding of projects.

Most project beneficiaries were positive about the coordination mechanisms:

‘The mechanisms are judged to be very helpful, efficient and supportive both during the application process and the progress of the project.’

‘The cooperation and support of the Task Force was particularly useful do develop and refine the offer that led to the assignment of the MoS funds.’

‘DG MOVE and later TEN-T EA (INEA) were very helpful in the development of the project and to overcome administrative obstacles.’


Calls for proposals have been issued on an annual basis. They address the companies from the maritime industry sector which normally instigate operational maritime service links. Such maritime transport operators should be based in an EU Member State, Norway, Iceland or Liechtenstein (fully participating countries). “Close third countries” (i.e. countries that have a common border with the EU or with a coastline on a closed or semi-closed sea neighbouring the EU) can also participate, although the Marco Polo programme does not cover the costs that they incur or that incur in their territory107.

107 There is a differentiation between “participation” and “being eligible for funding” (the latter also often referred to as "full participation"). Undertakings from EU Member States, fully participating countries and "close third countries", such as all Candidate States, EFTA Countries


April, 2017 106

Unlike the TEN-T programme, there is no pre-selection at Member State level. Moreover, there is no indicative budget for MoS actions. Project proposals from all five Marco Polo actions competed for the same budget and were appraised according to the same evaluation criteria (Table 26). The overall budget for Marco Polo II was €435.4 million.

To apply for the Motorway of the Sea funding of the Marco Polo programme, projects must satisfy a number of eligibility criteria:

Marco Polo funding can be applied for by privately or publicly owned commercial undertakings, and not by Member States.

Only Category “A” ports are eligible for funding under the Marco Polo action MoS (as defined in the Decision no 661/2010/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on Union Guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network). This means only ports with a total annual traffic volume of not less than 1.5 million tonnes of freight or 200,000 passengers can apply for funding.

Projects must involve freight transport services; infrastructure projects, research or study projects are not eligible for support. It is possible to propose mixed passenger-freight services and Ro-Ro ferries services, but only the freight part will be covered by financial support. The Motorway of the Sea action concerns projects focusing on modal shift by introducing a door-to-door service of SSS in potential combination with other modes of transport on the territory of at least two EU countries or one EU country and a fully participating country/ close third country.

The Marco Polo programme only accepts projects that propose to shift at least 200 million tonne km, on average, per year.

The proposal should demonstrate that the project does not distort competition. The modal shift should occur from road, and not from any other modes.

Funding priorities for eligible proposals were determined according to the evaluation criteria listed in Table 26.

Table 26. Marco Polo evaluation criteria

Criteria % of the final grade

Information that should be available in the proposals

Credibility and viability

50% Description of the market (e.g. market research, size, problems in the market, needs…)

Description of the service (e.g. type of freight, clients, return leg, frequency, contracts, capacity utilisation)

Recent letters of intent/commitment from potential customers

Business plan: detailed for the Marco Polo funding period and 1-2 years after. It should make a

as well as others due to their geographical proximity are eligible to participate in Marco Polo projects. However, only costs and modal shift/traffic avoidance arising on the territories of EU Member States or fully participating countries (i.e. countries which have concluded Special Agreements (e.g. Memorandum of Understanding) with the EU) are eligible for Marco Polo funding.


April, 2017 107

Criteria % of the final grade

Information that should be available in the proposals

separation between eligible and non-eligible costs, and revenue.

Environmental and other social external costs savings

20% Description of the qualitative benefits to the environment

Computations of the quantitative environmental benefits and the environmental efficiency per euro subvention and per tonne km shifted, using the Marco Polo calculator (available online)

Quantity of road freight shifted or avoided

20% Computations of the modal shift in tonne km, using the Marco Polo calculator

Innovative approach

10% Description of the innovative features (elements which did not exist before)

New operational technology or already existing but applied in a new market

Concrete dissemination plan (what, when, where, how)

Source: EACI/INEA

The size of the EU contribution to selected projects was determined in three ways (with the lowest of the three being selected):

€2 per 500 tonne km shifted108 - only the volume actually shifted off the roads is taken into account;

up to 35% of eligible costs and up to 20% for ancillary infrastructure costs; or

the cumulative deficit over the funding period (between three and five years depending on the type of action)109.

Funding was granted for a minimum of three years and a maximum of five years.

Most Marco Polo project beneficiaries reported that they had found the coordination mechanisms useful and helpful. One of the project beneficiaries highlighted the support INEA provided in explaining how the call process works.

5.2.2 (EQ 2.8B) How has the establishment of a coordination mechanism (including five task forces, four corridors, a European coordinator, Commission services, executive agencies) helped to improve the performance of MoS in particular to awareness raising of potential participants?

The knowledge and awareness of the Motorways of the Sea was very limited during the early years of the concept. An important conclusion of the first annual report of

108 For some maritime or inland waterway projects, it can be up to €3 per 500 tonne km, although there are no Motorways of the Sea projects that have benefited from this higher funding rate. 109 The Marco Polo programme cannot support profit-making projects.


April, 2017 108

the European Coordinator (for 2007/2008) was that the concept of Motorways of the Sea suffered from a lack of clarity among the main actors in the sector and that this may have been an important factor in the limited project activity during the first few years of implementation. In response, the European Coordinator defined a number of development priorities for Motorways of the Sea in his 2008/ 2009 annual report. The Coordinator reiterated that priorities should consist of both infrastructure (hinterland connections and within ports) and intelligent infrastructure (procedures, vehicles, cargoes). He also emphasised that investment in operations was not the primary objective of TEN-T funding and that such investments were better served by other funding instruments, such as the Marco Polo programme. Finally, it was stated that studies should be given priority. They were seen as important in bringing key actors together and providing a platform for integrating technologies and operational requirements, including information systems and customs requirements. More recently, the European Coordinator has placed an increasing emphasis on the environmental sustainability aspect of the Motorways of the Sea concept.

The importance and influence of the European Coordinator in raising awareness and support for the development of the Motorways of the Sea concept among potential participants was noted by most project beneficiaries. The MoS European Coordinator has had close contact with many of the funded TEN-T projects. Annual reports have bene produced that detail and evaluate the progress achieved by MoS projects that have received financial assistance under the TEN-T programme, and which make recommendations for the further development of Motorways of the Sea.

Many project beneficiaries acknowledged the work of the executive agency (TEN-T EA and INEA) and of Commission services in raising awareness, including through the MoS conferences organised and chaired by the European Commission and European MoS Coordinator. The conferences have been useful in facilitating networking and spreading good practice examples in a way that was lacking during the first few years. The executive agency and Commission have organised other awareness raising initiatives, including the TEN-T days, workshops and online publications (e.g. project fiches).

A small number of stakeholders, including Ministries/ Transport Attachés, noted that the coordination mechanisms could do more to reach out to a wider audience, particularly in the private sector. This view is, to some extent, supported by the evidence from the project reviews which found the pool of project partners to be relatively small.

Whilst providing EU funding for the development of MoS across different funding instruments like TEN-T, Marco Polo, ENPI and Interreg has been appropriate, it would have been useful to establish effective coordination between all MoS funding instruments and individual projects to ensure a more efficient and coherent corridor approach. Good coordination between funding sources has been evident for TEN-T and Marco Polo (e.g. through the executive agencies), but the same cannot be said for the other funding instruments. There have been no coordination mechanisms for MoS projects under Interreg, ENPI, RTD and IPA projects. Given the difficulties in identifying MoS projects outside of TEN-T and Marco Polo and thus getting a complete and definite view of MoS activity, it would be beneficial to introduce an umbrella coordination mechanism covering all relevant funding programmes. It is our view that this would be more helpful and/ or efficient than just having MoS coordination within individual funding instruments.


April, 2017 109

5.2.3 (EQ 2.8C) How has the establishment of a coordination mechanism (including five task forces, four corridors, a European coordinator, Commission services, executive agencies) helped to improve the performance of MoS in particular to: coherence / complementarity with national / regional projects / funds / policy?

The regional calls for proposals (for implementation (or works) projects), the corridor masterplans and the establishment of regional task forces have been particularly important in terms of ensuring coherence / complementarity with national / regional projects / funds / policy. This view is supported by the stakeholder consultations who report that they have created an important link between regional/ national priorities and EU priorities.

‘They helped align the project in all perspectives, from local to regional and through to the European level. They are useful in that they help you to see both the smaller and bigger picture.’

‘They have been useful in order to better understand the orientations of EU policies’.

‘They have been supportive in terms of bringing relevant people together that are relevant for individual projects…combining national/regional programmes with EU funding’.

Member State Focal Points have found the meetings of the MoS task forces particularly useful in increasing understanding the MoS concept and aligning local, regional and national priorities with European priorities. The task forces themselves also highlighted their role in developing MoS, particularly in consolidating the network of relationships among the interested authorities and players and improving the knowledge of opportunities.

For organisations that have not been direct involved in MoS, the role and contribution of the coordination mechanisms is less clear. For example, the European trade and industry associations consulted for the evaluation reported a lack of clarity and understanding of the roles of the various coordinating mechanisms.

5.2.4 (EQ 2.9) How far have the mechanisms in place to monitor progress in the development of MoS helped achieving the objectives?

The monitoring of TEN-T and Marco Polo projects has principally been the responsibility of the executive agencies (TEN-T EA and EACI initially, and INEA since 2014). Projects have been monitored through project visits and progress and final reports. With the important exception of Marco Polo, such project visits and reports have focused primarily on achievement of project milestones and activities, and so have not provided an assessment of the impact on wider MoS objectives. This limited the scope to monitor and assess overall progress towards the wider MoS objectives.

The Marco Polo programme was unique in that the EU contribution was conditional on the modal shift outcomes (an important objective of MoS). As such, there was a direct link between the monitoring activities, including the modal shift quantification, and achievement of the programme objectives. Initially there was a heavy reliance on the declarations made by the project beneficiaries, but this was improved following the 2009 call with the introduction of complementary audit certificates. This helped to achieve greater certainty about projects’ modal shift achievements.

The relationship and contact between the project beneficiaries and INEA (and its precursors) have been positive according to most project beneficiaries. A few complained about the monitoring and reporting requirements associated with the MoS funding (TEN-T and Marco Polo). Such complaints tended to relate to rigidities in the reporting templates. Most of these complaints came from private sector organisations with little prior exposure to EU funding mechanisms.


April, 2017 110

There has been no coordinated mechanism for monitoring the progress of the development of MoS within the other funding programmes (Interreg, ENPI, RTD and IPA projects). Nevertheless, in some cases, monitoring has been undertaken for individual projects or corridors. For example, the masterplan documents prepared by some ENPI and IPA projects have included monitoring activities as a way not only to check progress made but also to update the same guiding documents.

Both MED and TRACECA have supported the development of MoS, mainly through two backbone projects (MEDA-MOS I and II, LOGMOS I and II). In both cases monitoring of outcomes of the first round projects allowed the second round projects to better target the evolving needs of the sector. As such, monitoring activities effectively supported the achievement of the objectives by steering project proposals and supporting the continued cooperation with neighbouring countries.

5.3 Coherence of Motorways of the Sea

This section considers how well different actions work together. Motorways of the sea are parts of a complex transport network and work both as the start or end points of the core network and connectors between the core corridors.

5.3.1 (EQ 3.1) Has the MoS policy contributed to the achievement of other policy objectives in the EU transport policy (e.g. national single windows, use of LNG)?

The European Commission's comprehensive strategy on transport is contained in the White Paper on Transport.

The 2001 White Paper on Transport ‘European transport policy for 2010: time to decide’ listed some 60 measures intended to develop a European transport system capable of shifting the balance between modes of transport, revitalising the railways, promoting transport by sea and inland waterways and controlling the growth in air transport. The White Paper triggered a more decisive shift towards an environmentally responsible transport policy as a way to adapt to uneven growth in the various forms of transport, congestion on Europe’s roads and railways and the rising impact of pollution.

The main guiding principles of the 2001 White Paper were reaffirmed by the 2006 Commission communication – ‘Keep Europe moving – sustainable mobility for our continent’. The communication also drew attention to the changes in context since 2001 – EU enlargement, the acceleration of globalisation, international commitments to fighting global warming and rising energy prices – and the need to take these into account.

A follow-up White Paper (‘Roadmap to a single European transport area’) was adopted in 2011 and considered the work that needed to be done to complete the internal market in transport. In particular, it focused on:

building integrated transport networks which draw together different means of transport, or modes;

creating multimodal hubs (or ‘nodes’) and removing longstanding bottlenecks that can be technical, administrative or capacity related;

improving infrastructure in the countries which joined the EU from 2004 onwards;


April, 2017 111

emphasising research, innovation, investing in transport for the future without dependence on oil and preparing the industry to meet difficult decarbonisation targets without reducing mobility110.

Motorways of the Sea are the maritime element of the Trans-European Transport Network. In addition to supporting short sea routes, ports, associated maritime infrastructure and equipment, facilities as well as simplified administrative formalities, the MoS funding also contributes to:

the implementation of policy initiatives on the European maritime space without barriers and the maritime transport strategy for 2018; and

greenhouse gas reductions which are of paramount importance in the context of climate change.


MoS, as implemented through the TEN-T programme, has undergone a number of changes over time. From 2010, wider benefit projects have been the primary focus of funded projects (perhaps more so than was envisaged by the work programme and multi-annual calls). The wider benefit projects have focused on the development of ICT systems and environmental performance (and safety) improvements (Figure 26).

Figure 26. Type of activities (TEN-T)


This evolution of funded activities has resulted in the MoS policy, as implemented through the TEN-T programme, contributing to the achievement of other policy objectives in the EU transport policy. This is most notable in relation to the environmental performance of short sea shipping (e.g. the use of scrubbers, LNG) and ICT systems (e.g. sea traffic management and single windows).

MoS projects have supported new technology solutions (e.g. scrubber and hybrid engines), alternative fuel projects (particular LNG), vessel improvements, LNG bunkering solutions, more efficient port operations, all of which can improve the environmental performance of short sea shipping.

110 http://europa.eu/pol/pdf/flipbook/en/transport_en.pdf


April, 2017 112

The growing environmental focus of projects has been duly justified, given stricter rules in terms of sulphur content in marine fuels (in the Baltic Sea and North Sea) and the emphasis placed on environmental improvements in the 2011 Transport White Paper. 111.

The MoS policy has also supported cooperation to develop maritime national single windows and their interoperability (through projects such as AnNa). This is particularly welcomed in the context of the implementation of Directive 2010/65/EC. There are some suggestions that the resources dedicated to the single window policy and other measures to reduce administrative burdens have been inadequate.

Consultations with DG MARE suggest there is a strong complementarity and connection between MoS and initiatives such as the Integrated Maritime Policy (IMP) and Blue Growth. MoS promotes the development of new technologies, prototypes or innovative concepts that have the potential to foster growth in the ‘Blue Economy’.

The fact that TEN-T MoS projects have had an important role in supporting other policy objectives in the EU transport policy is reflected by the fact that MoS is included as a horizontal priority in the CEF. As such, MoS contributes towards the achievement of a European Maritime Transport Space without Barriers, connects Core Network Corridors by integrating the maritime leg and also facilitates maritime freight transport with neighbouring countries.


The Marco Polo programme has supported other policy objectives in the EU transport policy, promoting environmental benefits and external costs savings. The environmental benefits and external costs savings of the Marco Polo projects arise as a result of the modal shift achievements and have been estimated using a bespoke ‘Marco Polo calculator’112. The Marco Polo programme was the only programme at the EU level allowing for systematic quantification of environmental benefits.

The three completed projects were estimated to have had environmental benefits in the order of €150 million, representing €9.90 per €1 of EU subsidies. This is slightly lower than the Commission’s estimates for the first Marco Polo programme - for each euro invested in the Marco Polo I programme, environmental benefits worth €13.30 were generated. However, new coefficients and a new methodology were used when quantifying the impact of short sea shipping from 2011. The new coefficients acknowledged that road transport has gradually become cleaner relative to other modes. For example, there is no longer much difference between road-only transport and diesel trains, small barges or conventionally fuelled roll-on-roll-off passenger (‘Ro/Pax’) ships sailing at 20 to 23 knots. Moreover, as soon as Ro-Pax ships exceed a speed of 23 knots, the environmental impacts are greater than if the freight was carried by truck113. Non-road transport is nonetheless, overall, more environmentally friendly than haulage of cargo by trucks.

111 According to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from ships (MARPOL) Annex VI (Regulations for the Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships), and from 1st January 2015, ships trading in the designated emission control areas (SECA or SOx-ECA) are required to use fuel oil on board with a sulphur content of no more than 0.1%, compared with the previous limit of 1.0%. This requirement has also been transposed into EU legislation6. 112 The ‘Marco Polo calculator’ is an automated spreadsheet providing a comparison of the theoretical external costs pertaining to environmental factors (such as air pollution, climate change, noise) and to socioeconomic factors (like accidents, congestion and infrastructure). The calculation is expressed in euro per tonne km, between the ‘road-only’ transport solution and the alternative multimodal transport solution applied for (rail, inland waterways and short sea shipping). 113 European Court of Auditors (2013) Have the Marco Polo programmes been effective in shifting traffic off the road?; Special Report No 3


April, 2017 113

In addition to the quantitative benefits, Marco Polo projects have also been encouraged to demonstrate qualitative environmental benefits. For example, project proposals have been awarded additional points if they can demonstrate environmental and external costs savings by avoiding protected or sensitive areas and/or areas with heavily congested roads.

5.3.2 (EQ 3.2) How has the funding of the EU neighbouring policy supported the take-off of MoS in EU neighbouring countries?

As detailed in section 4, MoS in EU neighbouring countries have primarily been supported through ENPI (see Table 14) and IPA (see Table 15). Nine ENPI projects and four IPA projects have been identified as being aligned to the MoS concept. These projects have been implemented in the Mediterranean, the Caspian and Black Sea.

In terms of cooperation with EU neighbouring countries in the Mediterranean area, it is important to consider the linkages between the Trans-Mediterranean Transport Network (TMN-T) and the TEN-T. The definition of the TMN-T (although not yet definitely approved) is the result of a long process of cooperation between the EU and its southern Mediterranean partners. The process was launched in November 1995 with the adoption of the Declaration of Barcelona, in which participants agreed to cooperate in the area of transport and they “stress the importance of developing and improving infrastructure, including through the establishment of an efficient transport system”.

More recently (2013) the Union for the Mediterranean (UfM), endorsed the principle of developing the Trans-Mediterranean Transport Network (TMN-T), which will contribute to the economic growth and regional integration through a safe, secure, sustainable and efficient multimodal transport system for the movement of people and trade. The development of logistics platforms situated close to ports will reinforce the system's interoperability, allowing integrated multimodal services thanks to the connection between the lines of rail, land, maritime and airports constituting TMN-T.

The map of TMN-T is still under discussion, as is its possible extension. The Regional Transport Action Plan for the Mediterranean region (RTAP) 2014 – 2020, on the basis of the evaluation of the former Action Plan (RTAP 2006-2013), provided a list of key actions related to maritime transport. Among them, the development of Motorways of the Sea will continue to play a key role in connecting the Euro-Mediterranean region as well as its hinterlands.

The promotion of MoS projects and the possible mobilisation of the TEN-T instrument, (the Connecting Europe Facility) in addition to and in complementarity with the other available funds can favour the development of connections between the Trans-European Transport Network and the future Trans-Mediterranean Transport Network. MoS projects may be of common interest and eligible for EU financial support (RTAP 2014-2020).

The projects funded within the context of the EU neighbouring policy have objectives:

To promote the MoS concept and the creation of better maritime and intermodal transport connections in the concerned areas through support to Ministries, port authorities, customs and relevant private sector stakeholders;

To improve the overall regulatory framework and operational conditions in which Motorways of the Sea could develop;

To facilitate trade and transport within the Med area and along the so-called TRACECA corridor (the Transport Corridor connecting Europe-Caucasus-Central Asia or the "New Silk Road") through improved interoperability and multi-modal transport on the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea.


April, 2017 114

To remove logistical bottlenecks, in particular those hampering the flow of goods between ports and the hinterland with the objective of enhancing trade at regional and international levels.

To propose regulatory framework and sector reforms or adaptation for port, maritime and logistics operations as well as introduction of port environmental management systems.

For both TMN-T and TEN-T, one of the first steps has been the production of masterplans that defines specific actions and priorities. These masterplans have been based on an analysis of demand, an assessment of existing infrastructure, a mapping of key stakeholders.

In the Mediterranean the first regional MoS project/programme (MEDA-MOS) was initiated in 2007 as a technical assistance programme financed by the ENPI for a total of €4.8 million within the framework of the overall EuroMed Transport Programme. The programme provided technical support for governments and public authorities (e.g. Ministries of Transport, customs authorities, port authorities) of the Neighbourhood countries, and – to a more limited extent – to the private sector.

Within it, particular attention was given to training, workshops and seminars targeted at public officials and private interested companies, with the final aim of improving port operations, logistics, and customs processes. Pilot projects resulted in tangible successes (including partnership agreements between ports114) showing that the technical assistance served as a catalyst for economic and social development.

This cooperation programme had more concrete results in the development of pilot projects connecting Mediterranean ports in the neighbourhood countries with ports in the EU. In the evaluation of the 2006-2013 RTAP, the connections developed between Morocco and France for door-to-door transport of fresh agricultural products and the connection between Turkey and Italy were mentioned as successful projects implementing the MoS concept. The projects provide a reference model for future Motorways of the Sea in the Mediterranean as they have the capability of developing – with the help of EU assistance - into efficient, regular and intermodal short sea shipping connections.

Establishment of new connections is not the only tangible outcome. Other evidence of improved performance, obtained through actions supported by MEDA-MOS, includes: a reduction of dwell times at container ports of several Mediterranean partners (Jordan, Morocco and Lebanon experienced an improvement), improved dialogue between different Port Community Systems (PCSs) (e.g. between Jordan and Italy), monitoring and evaluation of existing services through a common set of indicators in order to improve the performances along the transport chains (cases of collaboration between Tunisia and France and Tunisia and Italy).

MEDA-MOS II, a second regional project / programme, () started in 2010 and was funded as a follow-up (€6 million). The second project took stock of the outcomes of the former (including the Masterplan), focusing on the ICT measures to foster integration along the logistic chain and on the environmental issues. All the beneficiary countries (Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Palestine Territories, Morocco, Lebanon, Algeria and Tunisia) developed studies and solutions that have the potential to enable a smoother performance of land-sea intermodal solutions.

Among the most important actions carried out with EU technical assistance and tailored to the specificities of the local contexts are the development of Port Community Systems, the activation of environmental management systems, feasibility

114 Examples include a Memorandum of Cooperation between the ports of Aqaba (Jordan) and Genoa (Italy), or the link between Agadir and Perpignan,


April, 2017 115

studies for dry-ports and value added logistics centres and more in general actions targeted at reducing the transit time in port and to ease the multimodal transport within ports.

The following table provides the list of activities undertaken to support the development of the selected routes / pilot projects:

Source: Meda Mos

With the same objectives, more recent projects have been focussing on customs (e.g. the CustomMed project) and on how to align customs practices in the partner countries with the EU.

In addition, in the TRACECA corridor, another set of activities were developed for the Black and Caspian Seas and involved the countries adjoining these seas. It provided technical assistance to their public authorities and also aims to implement pilot projects along the TRACECA corridor. The MoS development, as a key part of the programme, was started in 2009, and through the two linked projects LOGMOS I and LOGMOS II generated interesting results. The actions taken during the technical assistance were similar to the path followed in the Mediterranean area: identification of pilot projects, involvement of public and private sector stakeholder in working groups, analysis of traffic flows and definition of main barriers and constraints, training events to foster cooperation between the countries.

The LOGMOS Master Plan115 was developed on three layers: institutional and legal, infrastructural, market and operations, so to guarantee that the solutions proposed took into account the multifaceted nature of the problems being addressed.

115 Logistics Processes and Motorways of the Sea II in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, LOGMOS Master Plan, September 2014. http://www.traceca-org.org/fileadmin/fm-dam/TAREP/65ta/Master_Plan/MP.pdf


April, 2017 116

The project was successful in achieving the objective of developing a masterplan for the development of TRACECA corridor that was discussed with stakeholders and approved by the beneficiary.

The principal challenge was that LOGMOS I and II were transport projects but the main barriers and problems related to trade facilitation (including border control procedures, custom procedures, corruption, liberalisation of transport market, differences in the level of development in transport sector between the different countries, as well political tension and conflict between countries).

Pilot projects targeted the improvement of shipping links in the Caspian (linking Azerbaijan to Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan), new maritime links in the Black Sea (connecting Georgia, Turkey and Ukraine and Bulgaria), improvement or new intermodal logistics centres in various countries, and an improved rail link between Poti and Baku, which enables a full intermodality along the corridor.

While the improvement of shipping links needed mostly the implementation of soft measures (implying low investment costs and possibly a shorter time), the infrastructure projects required the construction or the upgrading of intermodal and logistics centres.

According to the LOGMOS project manager, there was an increase in Ro-Ro traffic on the Caspian See during the period of the project but it is difficult to say to what extent this can be attributed to the project, as opposed to other economic conditions in the area.

With a couple of exceptions (e.g. AdriaticMos), there is no strong connection between ENPI/ IPA and the other MoS funding instruments. This is mainly due to TEN-T funding being limited to intra-EU projects. This limitation has been removed for CEF calls and it is therefore possible for forthcoming MoS projects to target connections with neighbouring countries.

Geopolitical events have had impacts on the expansion of MoS outside the EU, the impact of the Syrian civil war on the Middle East region being one factor. The events that followed the Arab Spring meant that Tunisia and Egypt could no longer play an active role in the MEDA MOS project.

5.3.3 (EQ 3.3) Is there evidence that the MoS projects have created conditions for deterioration of competition, meaning that beneficiaries of EU funding or state aid have received unfair competitive advantages compared to those operating without aid?

Competition issues are covered in the evaluation of project proposals for both TEN-T and Marco Polo. There has been at least one case (a study, under the 2011 multi-annual call for proposals, which aimed to assess the possibility of implementing an Ecobonus scheme at a European level) where part of the reason for not recommending the project for funding was that competition issues were not sufficiently addressed.

Deterioration of competition can occur if EU funding or state aid leads to ports and shipping lines gaining a competitive advantage, in terms of costs, equipment and/or services, over non-participating ports and shipping lines as a result of the EU funding or state aid. State aid has been awarded in two out of four MoS Marco Polo projects. The European Commission concluded in both cases that the support is compatible with EU state aid rules regarding competition.

EU funding that supports maritime links at specific ports can be expected to have a greater potential to distort competition than projects focused on wider benefits. This is because wider benefit projects (such as those addressing pollution emissions or ICT applications) tend to have a more general application and larger, more dispersed set of beneficiaries. Projects focused on particular maritime links (such as those intended to remove bottlenecks at specific ports) have a smaller group of beneficiaries and can benefit some actors in a given market more than others. The risk of distortion of


April, 2017 117

competition is greater where ports (within the same country or in different countries) are competing against one another (Baindur and Viegas, 2012). This suggests that the risk of impact within countries is higher in countries with decentralised and liberalised markets for port services, where such competition is more intense. Similarly, where eligibility criteria exclude certain ports or shipping lines the risk of deterioration of competition may also be higher. For example, in the Marco Polo MoS action the funding was restricted to Category A ports.

This view is shared by most stakeholders, including project beneficiaries and Member State Focal Points.

There are no known cases where funded MoS projects have been deemed by the relevant services (e.g. the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition) to result in a deterioration of competition. This is not to say that there have not been complaints and concerns regarding the competition impacts of such projects. For example, in the final report of the Ro-Ro Past France project, the decision to award EU funding and state aid to the FRES MOS project was questioned. The European Commission concluded that there was no clear evidence of deterioration of competition because the two projects were operating in different markets. Similarly, there have been complaints from Scandlines (a TEN-T MoS project beneficiary) about the Fehmarn Belt Fixed Link, which has been awarded funding under CEF, as well as state aid). Scandlines, which operates the ferries between Rødby and Puttgarden, argues that that the granting of state aid is anti-competitive. This claim has been rejected by the European Commission on the basis that the tunnel will significantly reduce travel time between Germany and the eastern part of Denmark, and the other Nordic countries. Scandlines Danmark and Scandlines Deutschland have brought a case to the European Court of Justice.

5.4 Relevance of Motorways of the Sea

This section looks at the relationship between the needs and challenges of the SSS sector and the objectives of the MoS policy.

The 2003 Programme for the Promotion of Short Sea Shipping defined 14 actions to improve the efficiency of the mode and overcome obstacles to its development. These were divided into legislative, technical and operational actions. Implementation of Marco Polo and Motorways of the Sea were two of the five legislative actions.

The Mid-Term Review of the Programme for the Promotion of Short Sea Shipping (COM(2006) 380 final) acknowledged that SSS was growing but also noted that there were still a number of factors hindering its further development. Examples were:

lack of integration in the intermodal door-door supply chain;

complex administrative procedures; and

lack of port efficiency and access to ports.

In response to Europe 2020, the 2011 Transport White Paper and the EU Sulphur Directive6 (transposing international sulphur regulations under the MARPOL conventions), the environmental benefits (or impacts) of maritime transport have also been further emphasised in recent years.

5.4.1 (EQ 4.1) To what extent does the MoS address the identified needs (e.g. environmental, congestion mitigation)?

A diverse set of projects have been funded under the MoS policy (section 4). Project activities have included infrastructure investments to improve the efficiency of specific port operations and transport links; piloting of new approaches and technologies, particularly in relation to environmental performance and sea traffic management/ single window; establishment of new or more frequent services; cross-border


April, 2017 118

cooperation, including with neighbouring countries; and innovation activities and development of prototype technologies.

The types of projects funded under MoS policy have, to a greater or lesser extent, addressed or have the potential to address the needs of maritime freight transport/SSS. This view is shared by most stakeholders, including project beneficiaries but also SPCs and Member State Focal Points. Most SPCs and a few Member State Focal Points were complimentary about the MoS concept and its alignment with the needs of the SSS sector. They specifically mentioned the evolution of the concept from around 2010. For example, the increased emphasis on wider benefit activities (including those focusing on environmental issues) was viewed positively by many Member State Focal Points and was considered to be aligned to the needs of the sector.

The evolution of the concept was also mentioned by a few project beneficiaries. One beneficiary noted:

‘The MoS concept changed radically between early years 2000 and 2010 significantly affecting the perception and consequently the approach and dissemination of the MoS policy among the potential beneficiaries. From its origins until 2010 the MoS concept had a meaning almost equal to that of SSS. From 2010 onwards the concept has changed and expanded to include the entire logistics door-to-door chain. This has made possible the activation of a whole series of transversal projects over the entire chain maritime transport.’

According to the Member State Focal Points and Short Sea Promotion Centres, the EC has successfully positioned MoS and SSS as an integral part of the transport framework/ network. The introduction of European funding instruments and relevant policy documents to support MoS have increased the credibility of the concept. The growing recognition of the concept within the sector may, at least in part, explain the increased number of applications received in recent years. There is also a recognition from most Ministries / transport attachés consulted that the MoS policy has become more relevant in the last 15 years. This may also have contributed to the increased interest in MoS.

The interviews with the project beneficiaries suggest that there is a broad agreement that the MoS policy has (at least in part) met the needs of the SSS sector since 2001. Beneficiaries highlight the role of MoS in addressing environmental aspects and in supporting technological advancements;

‘Up to now, the MoS concept has met the needs for SSS – in the beginning with the funding of transport-related projects and then later on with the funding of innovative solutions, e.g. to meet SECA requirements.’

A European trade/industry association acknowledged that MoS policy has taken into account the need for greener transport by funding emission reducing technologies (such as scrubbers and dual fuel systems), with a strong focus on LNG. However, various European trade and industry associations noted that some important needs of SSS have not been addressed sufficiently, especially the reduction of administrative burdens. There has been a number of problems with the implementation of the maritime single windows as required by the Reporting Formalities Directive. The reduction of regulatory and administrative burdens would, according to these associations, bring significant benefits to the short sea shipping sector. It was also acknowledged that there has been a move towards a more supply-chain oriented approach and that this needs to be reflected in MoS project activity.

This is also something that has been picked up in the literature. A number of studies suggest that administrative procedures hinder the realisation of MoS. Cappucilli & Douet (2011) report that complex administrative procedures force SSS transport in Europe to be treated as international transport, whereas road transport is considered community transport (although this may be resolved by the Blue Belt action). Baindur


April, 2017 119

& Viegas (2011) report that the lack of uniformity in the methods, standards and effectiveness of inspection measures employed among ports and across the various facilities within a port has resulted in increased administrative burden and transaction costs on carriers and port facilities that reflect on the service time and price of the intermodal services.

Simplification of administrative and regulatory procedures in maritime freight transport is also something that has been highlighted by other stakeholders. A few project beneficiaries reported that the MoS funding had not been sufficient to close the competitiveness gap with other modes and that administrative and regulatory procedures are still holding the sector back.

A few project beneficiaries and Member State Focal Points mentioned the need for a more holistic approach (covering the whole freight logistic chain). The literature also indicates that the MoS concept has the potential to integrate seaborne connections with land modes (especially railways) and enhance inter-modality. It is important that the MoS concept fully reflect such opportunities.

A small number of the Member State Focal Points and Short Sea Promotion Centres argued that there is a need for a market-based incentive or demand-oriented programme, such as a European Ecobonus programme.

5.4.2 (EQ 4.2) Based on the development of the definition and objectives of the MoS over time, is it still aligned with the needs in the maritime freight transport and Short Sea Shipping?

The 2001 Transport White Paper introduced the MoS concept but did not provide a clear definition. The objectives have since evolved over time. For those funding programmes where MoS has been an explicit investment priority, it has been defined in the relevant legal and financial frameworks. For example, Article 12a of the revised 2004 TEN-T guidelines specifies two main objectives for sea motorway projects:

To concentrate flows of freight on sea-based logistical routes in order to reduce road congestion; and

To improve access to peripheral and island regions and states.

The 2003 High-Level Group defined the Motorways of the Sea in terms of the four corridors (section 2.3.2 and Figure 3).

Article 2 of the 2006 Marco Polo Regulation (1692/2006) defined MoS simply as activities that directly shift freight from road to short sea shipping or a combination of short sea shipping with other modes of transport in which road journeys are as short as possible. It goes on to say that this may include the modification or creation of the ancillary infrastructure required to implement a very large volume, high frequency intermodal maritime transport service. This would include, preferably, the use of the most environmentally-friendly transport modes, such as inland waterways and rail, for hinterland freight transport and integrated door-to-door services. If possible, the resources of the outermost regions should also be integrated.

These definitions have subsequently been further elaborated in the work programmes and the calls for proposals.

Many Member State Focal Points and a few SPCs reported that the MoS concept and its associated objectives initially suffered from a lack of clarity. As a result, they were not able to comment on the development of the MoS definition and objectives over time.


April, 2017 120

The initial lack of clarity in the concept is cited in the literature. For example, a European Parliament study116 noted that the implementation of the Motorways of the Sea concept suffered from an initial lack of appeal due to the concept not being clear.

Despite the definition issues, most SPCs responding to the written consultation stated that the MoS policy is aligned with the needs in the maritime freight transport and SSS. Most Member State Focal Points thoughts MoS is aligned with the needs in the maritime freight transport and SSS.

A couple of SPCs were not of the opinion that MoS is aligned with the needs in the maritime freight transport and argued that MoS focuses too much on liner services between two specific hub ports, Ro-Ro and ferry transport, as well as short distance maritime transport. It was also suggested that many segments of maritime freight transport and SSS lie outside the definition of MoS concept (e.g. tramp services, project cargo shipments, liquid and dry bulk, break bulk, even some container services). Whilst there has been a lack of project activity in these areas, the MoS definition does not restrict such market segments.

The evidence suggests that the MoS concept has become more clearly defined over time and that it has responded to shifts in priorities in maritime freight transport and short sea shipping. While there is recognition from industry stakeholders that MoS policy is broadly aligned with the sector’s needs, there is also interest in it having a greater focus on addressing administrative and regulatory burdens (see section 5.4.1) and ensuring a holistic, supply-chain based approach.

5.5 EU added value of Motorways of the Sea

This section considers the extent to which the MoS policy has resulted in benefits additional to what would have resulted from Member State interventions. It also examines the local, regional and EU effects of a number of ‘successful’ projects.

5.5.1 (EQ 5.1) To what extent has the MoS policy added benefits to what would have resulted from MS’ interventions only?

The assessment presented here draws heavily on the stakeholder consultations and the reference project reviews. It is beyond the scope of this study to develop a quantitative projection estimating the impacts that would have been achieved without EU support. Moreover, the quantitative evidence available on MoS results is not sufficient to support quantification of overall MoS impacts.

Most project beneficiaries indicated that their MoS projects (or at least most aspects of projects) would not have gone ahead without EU funding. TEN-T project beneficiaries advised that EU funding has been important to the funding of pilot projects. Pilot projects are associated with a higher level of (economic) uncertainty and risk to potential participants. Pilot (or mixed projects) have accounted for nearly a quarter of TEN-T MoS projects.

MoS funding has been important in leveraging private sector investment and developing business cases for further investment. There are a number of examples of studies and pilot actions leading to implementation work:

The studies carried out as part of the Adriatic Motorways of the Sea (ADRIAMOS) project contributed to the decision to proceed with the official permits and construction of a freight village in Igoumenitsa and a new Ro-Ro terminal in Venice.

The project beneficiaries of the NAPA studies project expect the studies and designs it provided to facilitate the construction works necessary for the development of the North Adriatic ports hinterland connections.

116 European Parliament (2014), Improving the Concept of ‘Motorways of the Sea’


April, 2017 121

The beneficiaries of the Green Bridge project note that the TT-Line has considered implementing the same type of exhaust gas cleaning technology that was piloted in the project on further vessels operating in the same South-Western Baltic Sea region. The scrubber manufacturer and the shipping yard have gained good experience from the development, manufacturing, deployment and testing of the solution, as well as a valuable reference case for future deployments in the market.

A number of initiatives that benefited from MoS funding have continued to evolve through new EU-funded projects. For example, an STM Validation project has been funded through the 2014 CEF call. This will validate the target concept of Sea Traffic Management (STM) as defined and elaborated within TEN-T’s MonaLisa and MonaLisa 2.0 projects. TrainMoS II aimed to further develop the knowledge and IT tools generated in TrainMoS.

A few project beneficiaries mentioned the importance of EU funding for modernising port and hinterland infrastructure. For example:

The Motorways of the Sea Esbjerg–Zeebrugge project invested in infrastructure and facilities such as a floating Ro-Ro ramp, the extension of an access way in Esbjerg, a Ro-Ro jetty, gantry cranes and ICT development in Zeebrugge. The project led to major improvements in the handling of goods and attracted more goods on the Ro-Ro based intermodal concept.

The Motorway of the Sea Rostock-Gedser action improved efficiency of port operations through investments such as an extension to the Rostock-Berlin railway, upgrading of European road E55 into the port of Rostock, and introduction of new ferries.

Even those TEN-T project beneficiaries that believed that their project (or aspects of their project) would have gone ahead without EU funding, recognised that its scale and scope would been much smaller. A few beneficiaries mentioned that their project would not have been implemented as quickly (as other sources of funding may have needed to be identified). Beneficiaries also recognised that it was unlikely that the projects implementation would have had a transnational element.

‘Within the MIELE project we worked with Portugal and Cyprus, without MoS it would have been very difficult to find a practical way to collaborate.’

‘Without MoS this type of cooperation would not have happened, we would have developed our own tools and software without any coordination. With MoS our project could be used in different Member States and dialogue.’

‘The main added value of the MoS programme is that the projects more easily gain the political support at local and national level.’

EU funding has been important to Marco Polo projects in reducing the risks associated with developing existing or establishing new MoS services. Project beneficiaries report that the EU funding, whilst relatively small compared to the overall investment, provided a useful boost to efforts to take MoS services (existing and new) forward. The European Shippers’ Council reported that the modal shift results of the Marco Polo projects would not have been achieved without MoS. For FRES MOS and Atlantica, state aid has also been necessary to establish the MoS services. EU funding (and state aid in the case of FRES MOS) has not, however, been enough to sustain the services in two out of three cases.

The project lead of the StratMoS project, which received Interreg funding, indicated that it would not have gone ahead without EU funding.

Member State Focal Points views of MoS added value were mixed. Those that thought the impacts would have been achieved even without MoS (albeit at a slower rate) particularly focused on environmental issues. One Member State Focal Point suggested


April, 2017 122

that technology-oriented impacts such as retrofitting and scrubber technologies could have been achieved under the ‘innovation’ part of TEN-T. Another noted that ‘MoS may have supported frontrunners but not completely triggered impacts that would not have come anyway.’ A further Member State Focal Point reported that ‘MoS has been an important driver for promoting and encouraging first movers in the market, particularly in terms of the use of LNG in shipping.’

The Member State Focal Points who believed MoS did generate added value highlighted its cooperation aspects. For example, one of the Member State Focal Points noted that ‘without MoS it would have been very difficult to find a practical way of collaborating, we would have developed our own tools and software without any coordination.’

The European trade and industry associations reported limited evidence of impacts from MoS (particularly in terms of modal shift). As such, they found it difficult to compare observed outcomes to a ‘no MoS’ counterfactual. However one of the associations thought that a number of MoS projects would not have been realised without EU funding. Another association suggested that the outcomes of projects concerned with improving environmental performance are likely to have been achieved even without the funding, albeit ‘in a different, more costly/ less innovative way’.

5.5.2 (EQ 5.2) For the projects deemed as successful, what was the positive effect at EU, regional and local level?

The achievements of MoS projects in supporting the SSS sector and shifting modal choice have been described in section 5.1. These project achievements are backed up by almost all of the SPCs and Member State Focal Points who were consulted. They believed that MoS and its associated funding programmes have provided added value in promoting and supporting the European SSS sector. The main effects mentioned by the SPCs and Member State Focal Points were improvements to port and hinterland infrastructure (intermodality, quality, efficiency, safety, etc.), improvements to the environmental performance of the sector and cooperation between ports/ Member States. A few SPCs and Member State Focal Points mentioned effects in relation to the development of ICT systems and solutions to administrative procedures.

Project beneficiaries’ perceptions about the main effects are quite varied but most highlighted how the transnational approach to addressing issues and challenges has led to common and shared solutions. A few beneficiaries mentioned the MoS policy’s role in funding innovative studies and pilots that are expected to have a ‘real and concrete impact on the market.’

For ENPI, the main added value reported by consultees is that it involves third countries in a cooperative process that makes them feel part of a common region. The project beneficiaries also reported improvements in relationships and enhanced trade along specific corridors between the EU and its neighbouring countries. Actors in these countries have benefited from good practice and other support delivered via technical assistance.

Similar views are recorded in the available literature. A European Parliament report (2014) found that the main added value provided by MoS is that it has encouraged a range of stakeholders from different Member State to work in partnership to assess challenges and find common solutions. The report also noted that MoS funding provides opportunities to speed-up investment efforts.

Many Member State Focal Points and project beneficiaries have mentioned that the potential EU added value of wider benefit actions is greater than for projects focused on particular transport links. This is because wider benefit projects have more general application to the sector as a whole, tackling issues of general interest (such as pollutant emissions or ICT applications) and/ or involve larger partnerships (covering a larger number of Member States). Nevertheless, the full impact of such actions will


April, 2017 123

only be realised if the findings/ solutions identified are taken forward into larger scale implementation.

Maritime link based projects are also seen as valuable but seen by stakeholders as having less potential to provide EU value added (particularly in decentralised and liberalised port systems). This is because such projects often concern investment in/ near specific ports and/ or specific transport links and the benefits are concentrated in areas that have received the funding (recognising that these areas represent at least two Member States). Such investments may also be associated with a higher risk market distortion.

Member State Focal Points and SPCs have highlighted the following projects as being particularly successful

MIELE - The main impact recorded for this project was a reduction in operating costs for the entire logistics chain due to the simplification of procedures and processes for both the transport operators and public authorities. Some of the pilot projects developed under MIELE continued, evolving in subsequent MoS projects as AnNa. Other pilot project produced systems and applications that are now used in the logistic chain. The software developed within the MIELE project has been used as a basis, not only in Italy, for the AnNa project, in the development of the Maritime Single Window.

MonaLisa 2.0 - The MonaLisa 2.0 project had a consortium of 39 partners and a budget of €24 million. During 2013-2015 it defined the Sea Traffic Management concept, assessed the strengths and weaknesses of the current maritime ship and transport systems, operations and interactions, and defined a target concept and key performance indicators for four STM strategic enablers (Voyage Management services, Flow Management services, Port Collaborative Decision Making (Port CDM) services, SeaSWIM (System Wide Information Management). The STM concept is currently being tested and validated through the STM Validation project (co-financed by CEF). It involves 300 vessels, 10 ports and 5 shore-based service centres in the Nordic and Mediterranean Seas.

B2MOS - In B2MOS, five interoperability studies of trade and transport documents have been elaborated, 14 quick-win solutions have been prototyped and piloted, and 20 port communities have been supported in making the adaptations required to comply with Directive 2010/65/EU. One of the 14 quick-win initiatives deals with prototyping and testing electronic archives adapted to different types of companies in the port logistic sector. The net present value over a period of 10 years of this initiative for B2MOS partners is estimated to exceed 4.9 million EUR.


April, 2017 124

6 Prospects for the further development of Motorways of the Sea

6.1 (EQ 7.1) What are the emerging and prospective sectors of the Short Sea Shipping activity? What are the potential constraints that hinder their development? How would the concept and institution of MoS need to be changed to meet these future challenges?

The MoS concept and the associated funding instruments require continuous adjustment and orientation to adapt to the changing needs and drivers of the SSS market. The most important factors currently affecting the development of SSS are117:

Excessive regulation. SSS competes with other modes of transport such as road and rail that are not regulated in the same way.

Complex and extensive bureaucratic procedures, especially in sea basins involving third countries.

The cost of access to/from ports as a result of inefficient infrastructures, capacity problems or poor intermodal facilities.

Declining modal competitiveness as a result of the extension of the road network and the flexibility and low cost of road transport.

The increase of SSS capacity and frequency requires sustained high demand which is perceived as a big risk for shipping companies.

Scale economies in the Ro-Ro/RoPax segment are less important than for other market segments. This is because the size of the vessels is restricted (need to be multi-purpose and designed for quick operation), which in turn means that the potential to reduce unit costs is much lower.

Imbalance of traffic flows at origin/destination points. Back-haul transport is a big issue for SSS.

Inter-modality in ports is poorly developed. The links between the land modes and SSS are not fully integrated within the supply-chain.

Annex VI of the MARPOL Convention on reducing sulphur oxide emissions from ships is likely to increase costs for the shipping industry and put upward pressure on freight rates in ECAs in North Europe (Baltic, North Sea and English Channel) and, consequently, reduce the competitiveness of SSS compared to road transport.

Stakeholders identified the main needs of the SSS sector as:

Improving inter-modality so that MoS can play a key role within the global logistic chain.

Simplifying and harmonising administrative and regulatory procedures, including technical solutions.

Environment and safety are also mentioned as key drivers for the innovation in the sector.

The lack of uniform standards and harmonised data requirements for reporting, as well as the absence of interoperability between national systems (and in some cases between the systems of individual authorities in the same Member State) has adversely affected European-wide data exchange.



April, 2017 125

The main obstacle to reducing environmental impacts is the cost of implementing the technical solutions. For safety (and training on safety) the main issue is the diversity of languages spoken by SSS crews.

Actions to tackle some, but not all, of these critical factors are supported by the CEF Regulation and the 2013 TEN-T guidelines (Motorways of the Sea is not specifically referenced in the legal and financial framework of the other funding programmes, such as ENI and ESIF). For example, the 2013 TEN-T Guidelines include provisions for addressing administrative and customs procedures and the implementation of information systems, including traffic management and electronic reporting systems. It also includes provisions to supports infrastructure investments for direct land and sea access and hinterland connections, as well as environmental improvements.

The factors are also captured within the areas identified by the European MoS coordinator as the focus for the future development of MoS under CEF:

Environment

Integration of Maritime Transport in the Logistics Chain

Maritime Safety, Traffic Management, Human Element/Training.

One stakeholder commented that: ‘The priorities described in the annual report of the MoS coordinator is a valuable input in the discussion and actions to meet the current and future needs, i.e. ICT infrastructures, integration of ports into corridors, overall logistic chains and education, training and employment.’

MoS is essentially a supply-side policy measure, although CEF has opened up the opportunity for demand-side measures. A few stakeholders (both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries) mentioned that demand-side initiatives, such as Ecobonus-type schemes, would help to strengthen SSS by improving the competitiveness of SSS in relation to road transport.

Another issue is third country access to the MoS support. CEF MoS projects have been open to third countries since 2014. Article 16 in the CEF regulation states that: ‘Actions in third countries may be supported by means of the financial instruments if those actions are necessary for the implementation of a project of common interest.’ This primarily relates to Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey and the Western Balkans, but can, under certain conditions, be extended to include other third countries.

There have also been some calls for ships to be considered as transport infrastructure (an extension of the road) and thus be subsidised. This would, according to one of the project beneficiaries, help establish additional maritime freight services.

It is important that MoS policy addresses the obstacles hampering the SSS development and viability. Intra-European shipping is expected to increase in the next few years. New infrastructure should be constructed and existing infrastructures strengthened to make SSS more attractive118. There is a close link between the provisions within the TEN-T guidelines, the focus areas identified by the MoS coordinator and many of the critical factors affecting the development of the SSS sector. The better integration of demand side measures into current programmes could usefully be investigated further. It may also be necessary to combine MoS policy with a review of the regulatory and administrative burden affecting SSS.



April, 2017 126

6.2 (EQ 7.2) How can the EU added-value stemming from the implementation of the MoS program be further maximised?

The main EU added value of the MoS policy is that it has resulted in greater transnational cooperation (including with neighbouring countries) which, in turn, has led to common solutions being adopted.

Wider benefit actions have been successful in generating EU added value and there a view among stakeholders that MoS should focus on such projects to help maximise the EU added value. Wider benefit projects tend to have a much wider application potential, whilst maritime link based projects tend to have more localised impacts. Wider benefit actions also have a lower risk of market distortion.

As recognised in section 6.1, there is also potential for:

Further simplification of administrative and regulatory procedures in maritime freight transport. A few project beneficiaries report that the MoS funding has not been enough to close the competitiveness gap with other modes and that administrative and regulatory burdens are holding the sector back.

Enhancing intermodality and a more holistic approach that covers the whole freight logistic chain. It is important that MoS targets such opportunities. Ports in MoS should not only be regarded as the start and the end of a corridor but also the link between the corridors.

Market-based incentive and demand-oriented measures. Much of the support provided to date has been orientated towards the supply-side.

EU added value can also be improved by strengthening the monitoring and evaluation of impacts and greater coordination between funding programmes. This would help in the identification of synergies between projects at the corridor and EU level. It is also important that the results of the monitoring and evaluation of impact are made available to stakeholders so that achievements are visible.

6.3 (EQ 7.3) How can the user friendliness of funding schemes be improved as per the opinion of eligible participants?

Funding schemes are generally regarded as user-friendly, though a few Member State Focal Points suggested that the calls for proposals need to be simplified and include clearer and more concise information on the priorities of the calls. They argue that the calls for proposals have lacked focus and prioritisation and that this may have made it difficult for prospective applicants to assess whether their project would be funded and so may have resulted in potential projects not being taken forward.

INEA and the MoS Helpdesk are regarded as helpful, and having responded well to early criticism from maritime stakeholders about the complexity of the funding programmes. The coordination across funding instruments beyond CEF could be improved to ensure a better overview of activities and a more efficient and coherent approach in individual MoS corridors.

It will be important to incentivise and involve the private sector in projects, including the users of SSS. This could include demand-side initiatives as well as information and awareness-raising activities.

6.4 (EQ 7.4) What can be done within and beyond the MoS program to further support the development of maritime links and clusters as part of logistics chains at EU, regional and national level?

With the MoS concept being implemented across a range of funding sources and instruments there is a need for better coordination to ensure a better overview of activities and a more efficient and coherent approach in individual corridors. There


April, 2017 127

should also be more integration between the project initiatives and the after-project situation; therefore, need for projects to be taken forward following completion so as not to lose what was achieved through the projects.

Improved intermodality and integrated supply chains were mentioned by most stakeholders as an important future development for the sector. SSS is part of a complex supply chain and only represents one mode within the chain.

There have been some calls for support to be directed to port complexes rather than individual ports. The TEN-T guidelines now permit support to freight villages. Relationship between hinterland connections and MoS opportunities should be made more explicit.

SSS’s role in the supply chain does not end at the EU border. Third countries should therefore, where relevant, be involved in MoS projects. This is particularly relevant for the Mediterranean and Black Sea areas.

Trade and industry associations highlight the important role of the European network of short sea promotion centres. It is suggested that these need to be have the financial resources they need to promote the mode in the most effective manner possible. This could help in terms of improving the visibility of the MoS policy and encourage involvement from a wider pool of stakeholders.

6.5 (EQ 7.5) How the concept can be better aligned with EU policies such as the 2011 White Paper on transport policy, the revised TEN-T Guidelines, the Research and Development Framework Programs, the Integrated Maritime Policy (Maritime Spatial Planning Directive), the Regional, Neighbourhood and Development Policies?

The MoS concept and the associated funding schemes are important instruments within a common transport policy. Its inclusion, first within the TEN-T/ Marco Polo and now the CEF, has increased the profile of Motorways of the Sea and highlighted the importance of the SSS sector.

The concept is aligned with many other EU policies, such as the 2011 White Paper on transport policy, the revised TEN-T Guidelines, the Research and Development Framework Programmes, the Integrated Maritime Policy (Maritime Spatial Planning Directive) and the Regional, Neighbourhood and Development Policies.

However, there are opportunities for better coordination of MoS with other EU policies and funding programmes, such as between innovation related activities within MoS and EU funding for research.

A number of new strategies have been developed since 2014 which are closely associated with MoS objectives (such as the EU Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Region (EUSAIR)). The MoS concept will need to be continuously integrated into relevant strategies and policies.


April, 2017 128

7 Conclusions

This section is presented in three parts.

An overview of the main achievements of MoS since the concept was first developed.

An overview of the key evaluative criteria

A summary of the key findings for each of the evaluation questions.

7.1 The achievements of Motorways of the Sea

This section provides some higher level headline achievements for MoS overall.

7.1.1 Adapting to changing circumstances

The evolution of the MoS concept is described in section 4 of this report.

When the MoS concept was first introduced in the 2001 European Transport White Paper at its heart was an aim to revive short sea shipping and to improve connections between ports and between ports and road/rail connections so as to improve the attractiveness of short sea shipping. Supporting SSS as a viable alternative to road freight would also help to alleviate road congestion. These goals remain, although there is no longer a programme with specific targets to reduce road congestion (up to 2013, this was one of the objectives of the Marco Polo programme). Over time the concept has been adapted to the changing economic circumstances, environmental pressures, and legislation (on environmental issues, information sharing and health and safety). MoS maintained its relevance and continued into the 2014-20 programming period with new funding sources (CEF, ENI, Interreg V and Horizon 2020) and support structures (INEA replacing previous secretariat agencies EACI and TEN-T-EA from 2014 onwards).

MoS’ adaptability owes something to its status as a concept rather than a specific programme. The legislative and financial frameworks associated with the MoS concept have been used and modified to meet the needs of the DGs various programmes (MOVE – TEN-T/ Marco Polo; NEAR – ENPI/ IPA; REGIO – Interreg; RTD framework programmes). For example, in 2007 a communication on the ‘extension of major trans-European axes to the neighbouring countries’ led to ENPI projects applying the MoS concept to Europe’s transport linkages with neighbouring countries.

With the MoS concept being implemented across a number of programmes, there has been a need for a strong coordination mechanism for all MoS related activity. This has only really existed for TEN-T and Marco Polo (through INEA/ DG MOVE, the European Coordinator, the five task forces and the MoS Helpdesk). In the case of TEN-T and Marco Polo, the coordination mechanisms for MoS supported policy discussions between the EC and key stakeholders, including representatives from the wider short sea shipping sector. This has helped to underpin changes in emphasis in MoS, the promotion of new groups of projects with appraisal and advisory services geared to move MoS into new policy areas.

7.1.2 Supporting and raising the profile of maritime transport

The MoS concept has had a positive influence on the profile of maritime transport and the short sea shipping sector, as mediated via conferences, events, dissemination of information on MoS-funded activity, and inter-service activities within the European Commission. The MoS supporting mechanisms (the MoS Coordinator, the executive agencies (currently INEA but previously EASME), the MoS Task Forces, the national focal points and short sea promotion centres) have all combined to promote the sector, support its viability and develop project activity that has leveraged in some €1.4 billion of public and private funding.


April, 2017 129

While the supporting mechanisms have largely focused on TEN-T and Marco Polo, the MoS concept has spread into inter-regional cooperation programmes (Interreg) and cooperation between the EU and neighbouring countries (through IPA and ENPI). The objectives of MoS towards clean competitive SSS are also supported by research and innovation within the EU research framework programmes (the 5th, 6th and 7th RTD Framework Programmes and onwards in the new programming period into Horizon 2020). As such MoS has catalysed development of EU policies and programmes. It has also allowed the maritime transport sector to benefit from a more diverse range of measures and financial resources.

MoS has worked with the ‘grain’ of various international obligations (e.g. Annex VI of MARPOL), EU Directives and Regulations and other non-legislative actions. This has ensured that stakeholders have a strong interest in the activities that can be funded through the programmes.

7.1.3 Promoting and implementing innovation

Increasingly MoS - and especially TEN-T and Interreg - has moved into the promotion and implementation of the innovation required to maintain the competitiveness of the short sea shipping sector. This involves the use of alternative fuels (LNG), technologies to improve environmental performance (e.g. the use of open loop scrubbers), new systems to improve the efficiency of short sea shipping and ports and to allow more and larger vessels to access routes and ports, and ice breaking technologies to help access to northern routes in the winter months.

The various conferences and events (including short sea shipping events) have assisted the dissemination of information on innovations and their practical benefits, with project presentations on practical applications.

7.1.4 Awareness and active participation in programmes

There has been successful engagement with stakeholders, both public and private, across all maritime regions and both within the EU and in neighbouring countries, around common sets of MoS-related policy issues. The supporting programme infrastructure for MoS, coupled with events and conferences, has raised the profile of MoS and raised awareness directly with stakeholders and indirectly through Member State governments and other participating countries. This has led to active participation and interest in MoS, as evidenced by the increasing number and scale of applications. A particular achievement has been the active involvement of countries outside the EU that have benefited from technical support and good practice.

At the project level, project coordinators have engaged with a wide range of stakeholders including SMEs, 30 or 40 plus for some projects, either as consultees invited to dissemination events or as active participants. Ports, maritime transport companies, researchers and academics, trade associations and trade suppliers, and national/regional/local governments have all been engaged. Road and rail freight operators, an important group for furthering the integration of road, rail and shipping, have not been so extensively involved.

7.2 Key Evaluative Criteria

This section summarises the overall performance of MoS against the key evaluative criteria: effectiveness; efficiency; coherence; relevance and EU added value.

7.2.1 Effectiveness

The measurable performance of MoS is mixed. Results should be seen in the context of the global financial and economic crisis which impacted on Mediterranean maritime regions in particular and of geo-political developments that have made it more difficult to build partnerships with some neighbouring countries.

Modal shift is a key proxy indicator for measuring progress in building the competitiveness of the short sea shipping sector. Despite the investment and other


April, 2017 130

support provided through the MoS policy, there has not been a significant improvement in the overall performance of SSS, in terms of its modal share, relative to road transport. There has been a slight modal shift since 2009, with the proportion of maritime freight traffic increasing from 32.4% to 33.4%. As freight volumes have remained fairly stable since 2009, it is likely that part of this increase in the modal share for maritime transport has been at the expense of road freight. MoS will have made some contribution, although only in Marco Polo was modal shift an indicator and the majority of Marco Polo projects fell short of their modal shift targets, mainly citing market conditions and the administrative burdens on maritime transport. Some TEN-T projects involved activities that encouraged modal shift, although not as a specific target (e.g. the Esbjerg-Zeebrugge route, and the Baltic Link Gdyna-Karlskrona link, MOS4MOS), demonstrating potential cost saving solutions for port and maritime activities, making short sea shipping more competitive. Representatives of the short sea shipping sector have called for greater incentives for maritime freight, although these would need to be developed in the context of state aid rules.

The objective of supporting and developing routes to islands and remote areas has been partially met. There are examples of ports and maritime links (new and existing) that have been supported in remote areas. Giving effective support and developing routes to islands has been complicated by underlying factors that make it difficult for MoS to succeed in such contexts.

The qualitative evidence from the evaluation is that MoS has not made a significant impact on road congestion and improvements are likely to be localised and project specific. Reliable EU-wide data on road congestion are not available.

This suggests that these objectives may not be the most appropriate for MoS to be measured against (at least not in the short or medium term). Notwithstanding the limited impact on the above measures, there can be no doubt that MoS has supported the development of the SSS sector. MoS appears to have been particularly successful in generating wider benefit actions (e.g. deployment of technological advancements, safety improvements, use of alternative fuels, hybrid and icebreaking technologies). As such, assessment against the objectives above does not capture many of the most significant impacts.

7.2.2 Efficiency

In terms of the use of funds, MoS has relied strongly on grant funding across all programmes. The CEF regulation recognises that in many cases sub-optimal investment situations and market imperfections may be more efficiently tackled by financial instruments than by grants. As such, it is possible for the MoS financial infrastructure to be developed further (although existing tools (e.g. loan guarantee scheme) have not been used).

There are good examples where projects have helped, or are expected, to improve the efficiency of port and/or short sea shipping systems (e.g. ITS Adriatic multiport gateway – new data management systems, and AnNa – aiding implementation of an EU Directive on reporting formalities).

In terms of the environmental performance, projects concerned with researching alternative fuels and adapting port facilities to these alternative fuels should contribute to environmental efficiency improvements (e.g. reduced GHG emissions) in the sector.

7.2.3 Coherence

There are direct links to EU Directives (e.g. Sulphur Directive6, the Reporting Formalities Directive), as well as EU-wide and DG-specific policies, such as the Framework Programmes, the Integrated Maritime Policy, Blue Growth and Regional and Neighbourhood Policies.

The way that MoS has adapted over time to reflect, and help influence, EU policy is a key achievement. Coordination is increasing and it has provided ‘road map’ which


April, 2017 131

policy makers, EU officials and governments have been able to adapt for their purposes, with the result that the MoS concept has extended into research, inter-regional collaboration and policies to develop linkages with neighbouring countries.

7.2.4 Relevance

The MoS label has been attached to a diverse set of projects. Examples are: infrastructure investments to improve the efficiency of specific port operations and transport links; piloting of new approaches and technologies, particularly in relation to environmental performance and sea traffic management/ single window; the establishment of new or more frequent services; cross-border cooperation, including with neighbouring countries; and research activities and development of prototype technologies.

Based on the analysis of the types of projects funded, and the evidence from the stakeholder consultations, it is clear that that the MoS policy has, to a greater or lesser extent, addressed or has the potential to address the needs of maritime freight transport/ SSS.

MoS has made significant contributions to policy development and has, through the profile raising activities (7.1.2), supported many of the policy debates concerning the environment (such as scrubbers and alternative fuels), maritime safety and reducing the administrative burden. In this way MoS is contributing to EU transport policy objectives and meeting identified needs.

The potential for MoS spending to distort the freight market was raised by some stakeholders (particularly in relation to the Marco Polo programme). No instances have been identified of MoS projects being deemed by competition authorities to have resulted in a distortion of competition. The increasing proportion of projects promoting wider benefits is likely to result in a lower risk of adverse impacts on competition. This is because the benefits of such projects have a much wider application and are not restricted to specific ports or maritime links.

7.2.5 EU Added Value

The main added value of MoS has been to lever in €1.4 billion of public and private funding, much of which would not have been spent in the same way, if at all, and not on the same timescales. MoS has helped to accelerate investments in ports and the short sea shipping sector. This has led to the following results:

New knowledge that supports innovation and underpins investments in the sector. Examples are: ‘MonaLisa’, which was intended to improve maritime safety through the mapping of safe navigation routes; and, ‘Methanol a marine fuel of the future’, which provided an innovation base for the feasibility of using methanol fuels as alternatives to the more polluting fuels currently used by the short sea shipping sector.

Improved collaboration between stakeholders and between regions (including specific cross-border/trans-regional agreements between ports). This has helped to build institutional links between countries and regions as well as practical benefits for those directly involved in the project implementation, or in the receipt of advice, technical assistance and information through dissemination events. Interviews with the reference projects highlighted the practical benefits to partner organisations arising from different countries and regions working together.

MoS activity providing the foundations for complementary projects (funded through TEN-T/ CEF, as well as ERDF and Cohesion Funds).

Development of MoS master plans designed to provide an evidence base for corridor specific needs and framework for the prioritisation of infrastructure works.


April, 2017 132

Support to the development of the short sea shipping and maritime skills base, contributing to the longer terms sustainability of the sector as well as contributions to economic growth (e.g. TrainMOS – which supported 200 students).

7.3 Summary of findings by evaluation question

This section compiles the findings presented above and provides summary response to each of the evaluation questions specified in the terms of reference.


State of Play

1.1 Which type of projects has been funded (developing port capacity, accessibility, intermodal connections, environmental performance, wider benefit actions etc.)? Non-funded proposals (the reasons why, % of successful/non-successful proposals) will also be investigated.

MoS projects have supported a diverse range of activities, reflecting the provisions of the relevant legal and financial frameworks governing the various funding programmes. TEN-T has mostly funded studies (59% of projects and 35% of the EU funding) and mixed projects (24% of projects and 40% of the EU funding), many of which relate to safety and environmental protection (39%) or ICT solutions (22%), particularly since 2010. Marco Polo funding was used to provide start-up aid for transport services. Interreg projects have focused on setting up networks and working groups, as well as providing analysis and developing joint tools, strategies and frameworks to support the development and implementation of MoS. ENPI projects have primarily identified and provided technical support to pilot Motorways of the Sea projects. The projects funded under the IPA have included the development of masterplans, single window systems and sustainable/intermodal transport solutions. The projects funded under the Framework Programmes have mostly taken the form of coordination and support actions.

The best information on project success rates comes from the TEN-T programme. Between 2009 and 2013, 71 eligible projects with a value of €670.9m (and against an EU budget of €345m) were assessed. 44 (62%) project applications (valued at €397.3m) were recommended for funding, 42 of which went forward. Reasons for not recommending projects for TEN-T funding included a lack of coherence and/or technical understanding in the written bids, weak analysis and lack of key stakeholders (including the omission of important ports).

1.2 A Which financial sources (TEN-T, Marco Polo, EU structural funds, European Investment Bank funding, state aid, private funding) have been used?

The TEN-T programme has been the most important source of MoS financing over the evaluation period, accounting for more than half of the projects and in excess of three quarters of the EU contribution to projects. Other important funding sources were the Marco Polo programme, the EU Structural Funds (particularly through the Interreg programmes) and the Cohesion Fund, the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument, Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance and the Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development. State aid has also provided additional funding for two Marco Polo projects. EIB funding has not been used by MoS projects in the period under review.


April, 2017 133


1.2 B Which financial instruments (grants, loans, equity, loan guarantees) have been used?

The identified MoS projects have been funded through EU grants. The EU contribution to projects has ranged from 20% under the TEN-T programme (works) to 100% under the ENPI. Around €0.5bn of EU funding has leveraged in €1.4bn of public and private funding. The loan guarantee instrument for TEN-T projects has not been used. Loans and equity from mainstream financial markets have been used by some MoS projects to fund infrastructure works.

1.3 Who have been the beneficiaries of funding (e.g. port authorities, port operators, ship owners, ship operators, land carriers, freight forwarders and shippers)?

The MoS projects have involved a variety of beneficiaries. Many projects involved regional and local authorities, ministries, port authorities/ operators and maritime/ multimodal transport operators including shipping companies. A wider range of actors, including SMEs, has been associated with projects but not as formal partners. Consultants and expert advisors have also been involved, normally the behest of the projects, providing coordination services and technical expertise.

The mix of beneficiaries varied by funding programme. A distinguishing aspect of the Marco Polo II projects was the presence of maritime/transport operators.

Effectiveness and efficiency of the policy

2.1 A How effective has the MoS policy been in supporting Short Sea Shipping and providing for an alternative for road transport or in better connecting islands and remote areas?

MoS projects have supported short sea shipping through, for instance, promoting inter-port collaboration, piloting new technologies, improving environmental performance, and supporting new routes and/or improving the frequency of services.

The impact of MoS funding on modal choice, and on shifting freight from road to SSS in particular, is less clear. While modal shift is an aim for the MoS policy as a whole, only the Marco Polo programme had the shifting freight from road to sea as an explicit measurable objective.

There are, as a result, few data on the modal shift effects of MoS projects other than those supported by Marco Polo. This limits the scope to assess impacts using quantitative evidence.

In 2014 maritime freight transport carried 33.4% of freight movements in the EU compared to 32.4% in 2009 (the 2009 and 2014 shares for road transport were 52.0% and 49.8% respectively). It is reasonable to conclude that MoS funding will have made a contribution to this outcome but in the absence (beyond Marco Polo) of good project-based data it is not possible to determine how and where.

Stakeholders consulted for the evaluation were positive about MoS projects’ contribution to SSS competitiveness but could not point to quantitative evidence. The evidence suggests that MoS projects actions enhanced the prospects for modal shift. MoS funding has contributed to improving and maintaining the competiveness of ports and short sea shipping through investment and modernisation.


April, 2017 134


The judgement on MoS’ impact on improving access to islands and remote areas is less favourable. Stakeholders often cited the lack of volume traffic required to make new or existing routes viable and whilst there are examples of new routes or more frequent services, this area of MoS activity seems to have been less successful than others (see below).

2.1 B How does the progress in different corridors compare?

The varying features of the MoS corridors in terms of economy, climate (some projects are climate specific, such as ice breakers), legislative environments and number of sea connections have had an impact on the types of activities funded and the progress made in the corridors. For example, in the Baltic Sea and the Western Europe Corridor, around half of the projects have been related to safety and environmental protection (46% and 55% respectively). These projects have particularly been helpful in preparing the operators within the Baltic Sea and the North Sea for changes in the legislation governing the sulphur content of fuel (SECA or SOx-ECA requirements). This is in contrast to the South-West Europe Corridor, where two out of three projects have been focused on information systems. In South-East Europe, the emphasis has been on regional cooperation (40% of projects). This has helped strengthen cooperation and coordination in South-East Europe, which has been lacking previously. This illustrates how actors in the different corridors have focused on what matters most to them given their regional circumstances and priorities, and the measurement of progress needs to be set in that framework.

The distribution of projects has been skewed towards the Baltic Sea corridor, particularly in the TEN-T programme (53% of all TEN-T projects and 73% of total TEN-T funding). There are several factors including a high proportion of existing partnerships (making project bidding notionally easier) and the masterplans supported by MoS that have provided the basis for subsequent projects (see Baltic Sea example in section 5.1.3). Interest in the MoS concept has grown recently in the Western Europe corridor as well as the Mediterranean corridors.

2.1 C Is there evidence that MoS projects have aided in reducing road congestion in linked areas?

In the absence of relevant project data quantitative appraisal of road congestion impacts is not feasible. Reductions in road congestion can be correlated with the achievements in relation to modal shift. Qualitative evidence gathered from project beneficiaries and other stakeholders suggests that some MoS projects may have had localised effects on road congestion effects, but these cannot be determined with confidence.

2.2 How well does the geographical scope of the MoS projects correspond to the pattern of actual trade flows between EU ports as well as between EU and third country ports?

The geographical scope of the MoS projects partially corresponds to the pattern of actual trade flows. The projects funded in the Baltic Sea and Western Europe MoS corridors correspond reasonably well to the actual trade flows but the two Mediterranean MoS corridors are significantly underrepresented considering their levels of short sea traffic (the exceptions being projects funded under ENPI and IPA).

The assessment is based on analysis of container movements and roll-on, roll-off (Ro-Ro) transport. The vast majority of European short sea container movements start and/or finish in the North Sea or Mediterranean Sea. These


April, 2017 135


two sea basins also account for a large proportion of European Ro-Ro traffic. Mediterranean ports’ large share of short sea traffic is not reflected in MoS funding (with the exception of ENPI and IPA). The high proportion of TEN-T projects funded in the Baltic Sea region is more attuned to the traffic flows, particularly when considering that parts of the North Sea region is included in the Baltic Sea MoS corridor.

In general terms, most short sea shipping is intra-regional. MoS project funding is consistent with this. For example, only six out 51 TEN-T projects cover more than one sea region.

All the 11 transport link projects have been implemented in the Baltic Sea (7) and Western Europe (4) MoS corridors.

INEA advised that there is not an explicit policy to encourage bids from specific regions and that bids are strictly scored on quality. Arrangements for bidding rounds have varied. For example, the arrangements for submitting proposals and/ or developing implementation projects has been more restrictive in the Mediterranean Sea, with calls for proposals in the two Mediterranean corridors being open for a much shorter time period than those covering the Baltic Sea and the North Sea.

2.3 A Have the financing schemes (be it a single financial instrument or a mix of different instruments) been effective in terms of providing right incentives to participants and why?

MoS project activity has increased over time. The funding requested by eligible projects has far exceeded the budgets in the multi-annual calls for proposals (at least for TEN-T). This suggests that the financing schemes have been effective in terms of providing the right incentives to participants.

MoS projects across all funding programmes have been funded through grants with varying degrees of co-funding from project beneficiaries (EU funding has ranged from 20% (TEN-T) to 100% (ENPI) of the total project costs).

For TEN-T much of the project activity has been geared towards interventions with a higher co-financing rate (i.e. studies, with 50% co-financing). This may indicate that the lower co-financing rates associated with implementation (works) projects have been less effective in providing the right incentives to participants, although there are also other factors that have influenced this trend (e.g. the need for Member State pre-approval and the limited duration of the joint calls for proposals, particularly in the Mediterranean).

The Marco Polo programme was unique in the sense that the EU contribution was conditional on the modal shift outcomes (an important objective of MoS). This helped steer projects towards a specific MoS objective (i.e. modal shift).

Almost all project beneficiaries have used their own finances to fund the remainder of the project costs. Two out of the four Marco Polo MoS projects have also benefited from state aid. Grant aid (as opposed to loans, loan guarantees and other financial instruments) has generated interest from prospective projects and, as shown above (1.1), demand for support has exceeded the available funds.

Projects have generally used a single funding instrument. As a general case a MoS project cannot receive grants from more than one EU funding source. Support from both TEN-T and Marco Polo programmes can be combined for a single maritime link provided there is no double funding of the same component or activity (e.g. TEN-T funding for the infrastructure and facilities,


April, 2017 136


could be used in combination with Marco Polo funding for the maritime services covering the same maritime link). For example, Atlantica Optimos (TEN-T) and Atlantica (Marco Polo) both covered the link between Nantes St-Nazaire (France) and Vigo (Spain).

There are, however, a number of examples where projects using different funding instruments have provided complementary support to a particular maritime link or port.

2.3 B What has been the leverage of EU funding?

The evaluation identified a population of 97 MoS projects for the period up to 2013. These had a total budget value of more than €1.9 billion, of which the EU contribution was approximately €0.5 billion. This indicates a gross leverage of EU funding of €1.4 billion. Non-financial leverage effects have been assessed as part of the EU added value below.

2.4 A Has this range of beneficiaries been optimal for the achievement of the objectives of the MoS policy?

Optimality is not easily judged in this context, but based on the influence and relevance of beneficiaries in relation to the objectives of the MoS policy it is concluded that project beneficiaries have been appropriate.

The MoS projects had a variety of beneficiaries. For many projects the primary beneficiaries were port authorities/operators and maritime/multimodal transport operators. Evidence gathered from project beneficiaries indicates that project partnerships were developed to prospects of achieving the stated project objectives and/or the wider MoS objectives. Project beneficiaries, as well as those outside the projects, highlighted difficulties in engaging road and rail operators, whose active participation would have been beneficial in effecting integrated transport solutions. Several projects extended stakeholder engagement through dissemination events and partnership meetings.

2.4 B How did SMEs benefit from the implementation of MoS?

As MoS project data did not systematically record SME participation it is not possible to specify the percentage of projects in which SMEs had a role or the number of enterprises. Project analysis shows SMEs have been involved both as lead beneficiaries and project partners. In some cases SMEs will have been involved as suppliers of works and services for MoS funded activities.

The evidence – including the responses of transport and trade attachés, chambers of commerce - indicates that SMEs have been encouraged to participate in projects and have benefited from projects either directly or indirectly. The stakeholders consulted particularly mention SPCs, national TEN-T days and ministry outreach activities as being useful in terms of encouraging SME participation. The research did not identify specific barriers to SME participation.

2.5 What have been the main difficulties of realising the projects (e.g. national legislation, change in market dynamics, technical state of available vessels, adequacy of information systems, cooperation between the players in the logistical chain, infrastructure weaknesses within a port, infrastructure connections with the hinterland, port formalities, competition between ports, various time delays and cost factors)?

The analysis did not identify any systematic project delivery issues; most


April, 2017 137


projects were implemented without any major difficulties. Problems, where they were encountered, variously related to the financial and economic crisis (which, for instance, affected demand for services supported by Marco Polo projects), compliance with procurement rules, communication and coordination within project partnerships (including sharing of sensitive data) and external political factors (for example, the ‘Arab Spring’ affected the ability of some ENPI projects to source partners). One of the 18 TEN-T projects for which final reports were available was terminated one due to changes in market conditions.

2.6 What have been the improvements in terms of regularity, frequency, efficiency and flexibility of the MoS routes and the connections between ports and hinterland?

Very few new MoS routes have been established in European sea basins in recent years. As such, it is mainly existing links that have been supported through investment in new infrastructure and additional services. The assessment of the effect of MoS project investments on the regularity, frequency, efficiency and flexibility of existing MoS routes relies heavily on evidence gathered in stakeholder consultations and on the reference projects.

There are indications that MoS projects have contributed towards improvements in terms of regularity, frequency, efficiency and flexibility of the MoS routes. Selected examples are:

Improvements to the frequency, efficiency and flexibility of services through the dedicated Ro-Ro terminal in Venice, via the ADRIAMOS project

The link between Helsinki and Tallinn has become more efficient as a result of the TWIN-PORT project.

In the Green Bridge project, flexibility was improved by enabling the use of all six TT-Line ships on Trelleborg-Rostock and Trelleborg-Travemünde (Lübeck) services.

IBUK led to benefits that included higher frequency of service and more equipment to handle specialised cargoes.

79% of Member State Focal Points and 60% of Short Sea Promotion Centres who responded to the consultation exercise believed that MoS activities had had a positive impact. For TEN-T projects such improvements were a result of new terminals and other infrastructure improvements at ports (e.g. Venice), better integration with logistic chains and more efficient information systems. The Marco Polo projects have, however, had difficulties in sustaining such improvements, with two out of three Marco Polo MoS services being suspended following the completion of the project.

2.7 To what extent have the administrative procedures, which apply to maritime transport in the EU, hindered or aided the realisation and exploitation of MoS routes?

There is a general perception among stakeholders that administrative procedures in maritime transport are complex, onerous and duplicative, especially by comparison with those applying to road and rail transport. In their analysis this procedural burden reduces the competitiveness of maritime sector and thus hinders the establishment of new MoS routes.

Certain projects have specifically worked on cutting administrative burdens and aimed at saving time through improved logistics and information sharing.


April, 2017 138


B2MOS, for example, includes a new electronic archive to replace paper based systems while AnNa was designed to support the development of national Maritime Single Windows. The EU has taken steps to address these issues, such as via the Reporting Formalities Directive 65/2010 which was intended to simplify and harmonise reporting requirements.

2.8 A How has the establishment of a coordination mechanism (including five task forces, four corridors, a European coordinator, Commission services, executive agencies) helped to improve the performance of MoS in particular to: selecting and funding projects?

The evidence shows that the coordination mechanism, particularly the executive agencies and the five task forces, has helped improve the selection and funding of TEN-T MoS and Marco Polo projects, and raised the profile of MoS more generally. The coordination mechanism has helped to promote good practice and awareness of specific project activity, generate project ideas and provide critical challenge to projects the appraisal and selection of projects. Interreg, ENPI, RTD and IPA projects have not benefitted from a similar coordination mechanism.

2.8 B How has the establishment of a coordination mechanism (including five task forces, four corridors, a European coordinator, Commission services, executive agencies) helped to improve the performance of MoS in particular to: awareness raising of potential participants?

The coordination mechanism has made a positive contribution to raising awareness about MoS policy and projects. Regular MoS and/or short sea shipping conferences and other events, including MoS conferences, TEN-T days and the work of the European Sustainable Shipping Forum (ESSF), have helped to generate interest in MoS and have supported new applications. At such conferences and events participants were informed by beneficiaries of already funded projects, the Commission, executive agencies and the European coordinator about what is expected, what makes a project successful, and the challenges to be overcome. The 2015 MoS event in Liverpool (UK) included project presentations that were seen by a wide range of stakeholders, some of whom were active in MoS, some not.

2.8 C How has the establishment of a coordination mechanism (including five task forces, four corridors, a European coordinator, Commission services, executive agencies) helped to improve the performance of MoS in particular to: coherence / complementarity with national / regional projects / funds / policy?

The coordination mechanisms for TEN-T and Marco Polo II have had a positive effect on the coherence and complementarity with national and regional projects, funds and policy. The MoS Task Forces were highlighted by stakeholder as being particularly important. They brought prospective networks together and provided a steer on how projects could be developed to support the MoS objectives, as well as creating linkages with complementary EU policies. Projects supported by ENPI have benefited from National Contact Points which have been helpful in identifying project partners. Interreg projects have been guided by the territorial programmes.

2.9 How far have the mechanisms in place to monitor progress in the development of MoS helped achieving the objectives?


April, 2017 139


The monitoring of TEN-T and Marco Polo projects has principally been the responsibility of the executive agencies. Projects have been monitored through project visits and scrutiny of progress and final reports. With the important exception of Marco Polo, such project visits and reports have, however, focused primarily on the achievement of project milestones and activities. They have not provided an assessment of the projects’ impacts on the wider MoS objectives. This, in turn, has limited the scope to assess the overall progress towards those objectives. A more robust monitoring and evaluation system would be needed for project and overall MoS impacts to be quantified. For some impacts this would need to include (i) clear specification, ex ante of the intervention logic for the project, (ii) consideration of the counterfactual – i.e. what is expected to happen to freight volumes, road congestion, environmental conditions, modal share, etc. in the absence of the MoS funding, and (iii) project-level ex post analysis of outcomes and impacts.

For Marco Polo the direct link between the modal shift achievements and the EU contribution provided a way of monitoring the achievement of project targets and programme objectives.

Coherence of the policy

3.1 Has the MoS policy contributed to the achievement of other policy objectives in EU transport policy (e.g. national single windows, use of LNG)?

MoS policy has contributed to the achievement of other policy objectives in the EU transport policy. The clearest example is the suite of projects that have focused on (i) reducing the environmental improvement of SSS (e.g. the use of open loop scrubbers, LNG or other alternative fuels) and (ii) the development of ICT systems (e.g. sea traffic management and single windows).

Equally, EU environmental policies provide a framework for some MoS projects (e.g. the Sulphur Directive6, the Water Framework Directive). Funding has been provided to projects prompted by the Directives and the need to implement them.

3.2 How has the funding of the EU neighbouring policy supported the take-off of MoS in EU neighbouring countries?

MoS initiatives in EU neighbouring countries have primarily been supported through the ENPI and IPA. Nine ENPI projects and four IPA projects have been identified as being aligned to the MoS concept. These projects have, inter alia, resulted in partnership agreements and Memorandum of Agreements between ports, highlighting that these projects can catalyse improvements in economic/ trade relationships.

3.3 Is there evidence that the MoS projects have created conditions for deterioration of competition, meaning that beneficiaries of EU funding or state aid have received unfair competitive advantages compared to those operating without aid?

EU funding or state aid has the potential to give particular ports or shipping lines a competitive advantage (in terms of costs, equipment and/ or services) over non-participating ports and shipping lines.

There have been no cases where funded MoS projects have been deemed to result in a distortion of competition. Concerns about distortion of markets and


April, 2017 140


competition have been raised by some stakeholders but they have been not substantiated.

Generally, EU funding that supports infrastructure works and maritime links at specific ports can be expected to have a greater potential for distorting competition than funding focused on wider benefits.

Relevance of the policy

4.1 To what extent does the MoS address the identified needs (e.g. environmental, congestion mitigation)?

A review of projects and the balance of funding shows that MoS is attuned to the needs of the short sea shipping sector. The increased emphasis on environmental, safety and port logistics in the latter part of the period covered in this evaluation, and beyond into the current programming period, illustrates how MoS support has tracked the evolution of the sector.

There have been reviews on the factors hindering the development of short sea shipping at various stages. Key issues are the complexity and cost of administrative procedures, a lack of inter-modality (particularly with rail), port performance, and challenges arising from environmental legislation. MoS financing has been directed to projects that are addressing these topics.

4.2 Based on the development of the definition and objectives of the MoS over time, is it still aligned with the needs in the maritime freight transport and Short Sea Shipping?

Evidence from the literature and consultations with SSS Focal Points and Promotion Centres highlight the lack of focus that characterised the early stage of the MoS concept, and the resulting lack of clarity in the communication of its objectives.

The literature and consultations point, overall, to MoS becoming better aligned with the needs of the SSS sector (see 4.1 above). That said, there were contrary views from some Promotion Centres who felt that MoS had missed specific components of the sector (e.g. tramp services, smaller scale ship owners) and given too much attention to other components (e.g. Ro-Ro and liner services).

EU added value

5.1 To what extent has the MoS policy added benefits to what would have resulted from MS’ interventions only?

Whilst recognising the difficulties in assessing the counterfactual, there is evidence to suggest that a majority of MoS projects (or at least most aspects of projects) would not have gone ahead without EU funding. Even among those TEN-T project beneficiaries that believed that their project (or aspects of their project) would have gone ahead without funding, there was recognition that the scale and scope of the project would been much lower without MoS helping to ‘de risk’ some major investments.

The main added value of the MoS policy is that it has resulted in greater transnational cooperation, which in turn has led to common solutions. The links between ports in the EU and in neighbourhood countries – funded through ENPI – would probably not have developed in the absence of MoS.


April, 2017 141


5.2 For the projects deemed as successful, what was the positive effect at EU, regional and local level?

EU value added is particularly evident from the wider benefit actions as they often have wider application or involve larger partnerships (covering a larger number of Member States). Maritime link based projects are also considered to provide added value but this is often concentrated in the areas of the participating Member States (at least two) benefiting from the investment.

Member State Focal Points and SPCs have highlighted the success of projects such as MIELE (reducing costs in the logistics sector), AnNa and B2MOS (helping to implement EU Directives), and MonaLisa 2.0 (improved operating systems). All of these projects have with a wider applicability to the operation of SSS sector. This supports the view that it is primarily these wider benefit projects that have greater potential to add value to the sector.

Prospects for the further development of Motorways of the Sea

7.1 What are the emerging and prospective sectors of the Short Sea Shipping activity? What are the potential constraints that hinder their development? How would the concept and institution of MoS need to be changed to meet these future challenges?

The constraints and challenges identified through the research and consultations were mostly generic to the SSS as a whole rather than specific to specific components of the sector. The sector continues to face challenges in upgrading its environmental performance and in securing the infrastructure needed to enhance competitiveness. The integration and harmonisation of administrative and regulatory procedures, as well as integration with other modes of transport are also important needs of the SSS sector. The MoS policy is well placed to respond to such issues based on the experiences and achievements up to 2013.

7.2 How can the EU added-value stemming from the implementation of the MoS programme be further maximised?

Wider benefit projects have been highlighted as having greater potential to provide EU added value and thus should be prioritised further in the MoS policy.

There is also potential for further EE added value by simplifying administrative and regulatory procedures in maritime freight transport, enhancing intermodality and providing a more holistic approach and offering market-based incentives/ demand-oriented measures.

The EU added value can also be improved by improving the monitoring and evaluation of impacts, as well as greater coordination between funding programmes. This would help in terms of identifying potential synergies between projects at the corridor and EU level.

7.3 How can the user friendliness of funding schemes be improved as per the opinion of eligible participants?

The user friendliness of the funding schemes has generally been considered to be good. A few stakeholders have suggested that the calls for proposals could be simplified and include clearer and more concise information on the priorities of the calls. This would help applicants to assess whether their project idea


April, 2017 142


matched the priorities of the calls. The use of conferences and other stakeholder and inter-governmental events has helped to develop projects and can continue to do so in the future.

7.4 What can be done within and beyond the MoS programme to further support the development of maritime links and clusters as part of logistics chains at EU, regional and national level?

The MoS concept is currently implemented across a range of funding sources / instruments with limited coordination. More coordination of MoS related activity would provide a better overview of MoS activities and a more efficient and coherent approach in individual corridors. There should also be a closer follow-up and evaluation of projects following their completion in order to assess their contribution to the MoS objectives. This is particularly important for studies and pilot actions.

Improved intermodality and integrated supply chains have also been mentioned by most stakeholders as an important future development for the sector. SSS is part of a complex supply chain and only represents one mode within the chain.

7.5 How the concept can be better aligned with EU policies such as the 2011 White Paper on transport policy, the revised TEN-T Guidelines, the Research and Development Framework Programmes, the Integrated Maritime Policy (Maritime Spatial Planning Directive), the Regional, Neighbourhood and Development Policies?

The MoS concept and the associated funding schemes are important instruments within a common transport policy. Its inclusion, first within the TEN-T/ Marco Polo and now the CEF, has increased the profile of Motorways of the Sea and highlighted the importance of the SSS sector.

The concept is already well aligned with many other EU policies, such as the 2011 White Paper on transport policy, the revised TEN-T Guidelines, the Research and Development Framework Programmes, the Integrated Maritime Policy (Maritime Spatial Planning Directive), the Regional, Neighbourhood and Development Policies. However, with the MoS concept being implemented across a number of funding programmes, there are opportunities for better coordination between EU policies and funding programmes. This would help in the identification of synergies between projects at the corridor and EU level.


April, 2017 143

Annex 1 List of consultees

Table 27. EC services

Organisation Name

Policy makers and advisors

Commission Services – Policy perspective

DG MOVE Evi Lardi

Patrick Norroy

DG REGIO Alexander Ferstl

DG NEAR Stefaan Bil

Liselotte Isaksson.

DG COMP Aleksandra Kronberga.

DG MARE Marco Nobile

DG ENV Rosa Antidormi

Commission Services – MoS implementation

INEA Jaroslaw Kotowski

Sofia Papantoniadou

Antonios Tsamoulis

Anne Barseth

Indre Venckunaite

DG MOVE José Anselmo

Brian Simpson

Table 28. Regional Task Forces for MoS

Organisation Name

Regional Task Forces for MoS North Sea Task Force

Pim Bonne

Baltic Sea Task Force

Magnus Sundström

East Mediterranean Task Force

Kostantinos Grinias

West Mediterranean Task Force

Francesco Benevolo

Table 29. Member State Focal Points for Shortsea Shipping and Motorways of the Sea

Organisation Country Name

Cyprus Ports Authority Cyprus Yannos Lakkotrypis

Danish Ministry of Transport and Buildings

Denmark Thomas Rousing-Schmidt

Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung

Germany Georg Henkelmann


April, 2017 144


Department of Transport Ireland Michael Morrissey

Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport

Italy Gioconda Miele

Swedish Maritime Administration

Sweden Per-Olof Lingvall

Department for Transport United Kingdom Andrew Price

Federal Public Service Mobility and Transport, Shipping Assistance Division

Belgium Pim Bonne

Finnish Transport Agency Finland Taneli Antikainen

Maritime Transport Attaché - Permanent Representation of Greece to the EU

Greece Lt Commander (HCG) Nikos Matoulas

Puertos del Estado Spain Álvaro Rodríguez

Ministry of National Development

Hungary Gergely Gecse

Ministry of Transport Communications and Public Works

Slovakia Pavol Marusinec

Table 30. Short Sea Promotion Centres for Shortsea Shipping and Motorways of the Sea


SPC Belgium - Promotie Binnenvaart Vlaanderen - Short Sea promotion centre Belgium

Belgium Willy De Decker

SPC Finland - Turun yliopisto - University of Turku

Finland Riitta Pöntynen

SPC France - Bureau de Promotion due Transport Maritime àa Courte Distance (BP2S)

France Jean-Marie Gaëlle-Cadiou

SPC Greece - Hellenic Shortsea Shipowners Association (HSSA)

Greece Dr. Alkis John Corres

SPC Spain - Asociación Española de Promoción del Transporte Marítimo de Corta Distancia

Spain [email protected]


April, 2017 145

Table 31. Project beneficiaries – reference projects

TEN-T Name Organisation

2008-EU-21020-P - Motorways of the Sea Esbjerg – Zeebrugge

Ole Ingrisch Port of Esbjerg

2009-EU-21010-P - Baltic Link Gdynia-Karlskrona

Per-Olof Löfberg Region Kronoberg

2010-EU-21101-S - MoS24 Francesca Moglia Genova Port Authority

2010-EU-21102-S - MOS4MOS

José García de la Guía

Eva Pérez García

Port Authority of Valencia

2010-EU-21105-S - MIELE Alexio Picco Circle

2010-EU-21106-S - ITS Adriatic multi-port gateway

James Orlandi Venice Port Authority

2010-EU-21107-P - Motorway of the Sea Rostock - Gedser

Marko Möller Scandlines

2010-EU-21108-P - The Baltic Sea Hub and Spokes Project

Helle Maj Hermansen

Nicolai Krøyer

Municipality of Aarhus

Port of Aarhus

2010-EU-21109-S – MonaLisa

Magnus Sundström Swedish Maritime Administration

2010-EU-21112-S - LNG infrastructure of filling stations and deployment in ships

Mogens Schrøder Bech Danish Maritime Authority

2011-EU-21007-S - COSTA Alessia Vergine RINA

2011-EU-21004-S - TrainMoS

José Almazan Almazan Ingenieros

2012-EU-21008-M - WINMOS

Roy Jaan Swedish Maritime Administration

2012-EU-21013-M - Kvarken Multimodal Link - Midway Alignment of the Bothnian Corridor

Ulrika Roupe/ Mathias

Lindström

SSPA

2012-EU-21017-S - Methanol: The marine fuel of the future

Per Stefenson STENA

2012-EU-21023-S - Sustainable Traffic Machines - On the way to greener shipping

Marko Möller Scandlines

2013-EU-21001-P - BRIDGE - Building the Resilience of International & Dependent Gateways in

Richard Christian Port of Dover


April, 2017 146

Table 32. Other stakeholders

Stakeholder group Sub-category Organisation Name

Stakeholder associations and private businesses at EU and MS level

Port operators / administrations / authorities

European Sea Ports Organisation (ESPO)

Eugenio Quintieri

Shipping operators European Community Shipowners’ Associations (ECSA)

Lieselot Marinus

Freight forwarders European Association for Forwarding, Transport, Logistics and Customs Services (CLECAT)

Nicolette van der Jagt

Other relevant associations

European Shippers Council

Fabien Becquelin

Europe

2013-EU-21015-P - Sustainable Motorway of the Sea Ghent-Gothenburg through environmental upgrade and compliance while maintaining competitiveness of SSS

Poul Woodall DFDS

2013-EU-21018-S - Pilot Implementation of a LNG-Propulsion System on a MoS Test Track in the Environmental Model Region 'Wadden Sea'

Claus Hirsch AG EMS

Marco Polo Name Organisation

Ro-Ro Past France Maarten Lodewijks Spliethoff’s

Bevrachtingskantoor B.V.

FRESMOS

Antoine Person

Louis Dreyfus Armateurs SAS

Gulfstream.MoS Francois Potier Brittany Ferries

Atlantica Daniel Criado-Pérez Suardiaz

ENPI Name Organisation

MEDA MoS Johnny Ojeil ARUP

LogMoS Andreas Schoen LogMoS

Interreg Name Organisation

Stratmos Olav Hauge Rogaland County Council


April, 2017 147

Stakeholder group Sub-category Organisation Name

EU and national NGOs, Think Tanks

NGOs Transport & Environment

Sotiris Raptis

Table 33. Transport Attaches and other Ministry representatives

Name Organisation

Alain Hoffman Luxembourg Maritime Administration

Eugeen Van Craeyvelt Federal Public Service Mobility & Transport, Belgium - Maritime administration

Hilde Kammerer German Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure

Dean Strbačko Transport Attache, Permanent Representation of Croatia to the EU

Giuseppe Izzo Transport Attache, Permanent Representation of Italy to the EU

Paul Zeer Dutch Ministry Infrastructure and the Environment

Magnus Oldenburg Swedish Ministry of Enterprise and Innovation

Julie Raffaillac French Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy

Table 34. Chambers of Commerce and SMEs

Name Organisation

Raúl Minguez Chamber of Commerce of Spain

Poul Woodall DFDS A/S

Gennaro Ievoli Marnavi Spa

Jens P Buchhave Terntank Rederi

Claus Nikolajsen Scandlines Danmark

Antoine PERSON LOUIS DREYFUS ARMATEURS

Ebbe Bisgaard Unifeeder


April, 2017 148

Annex 2 Topic guides for interviews

This Annex provides three separate interview topic guides for EC services, beneficiaries and other stakeholders.

Topic guide – EC services

Interview question Linked to Evaluation Q

What is/was your role with regard to the MoS policy and its implementation?

Intro

Project description

In your view, what were the main challenges faced by the MoS projects? Probe: change in market dynamics, technical state of available vessels, adequacy of information systems, cooperation between the players in the logistical chain, infrastructure weaknesses within a port, infrastructure connections with the hinterland, port formalities, competition between ports, various time delays and cost factors

What could be done to prevent such challenges in the future?

Probe: would these suggestions to overcome obstacles have been easy to implement from the outset, or would it require a considerable and concerted effort or incur additional costs?

2.5

Administrative procedures

Are you aware of the coordination mechanisms which have been put in place by the EC to support the MoS agenda (i.e. five task forces, four corridors, a European coordinator, Commission services, executive agencies)?

Probe: have you come into direct contact with any of these coordination mechanisms?

What was the nature of this contact with the coordination mechanism?

2.8A

In your view, did these mechanisms facilitate the selection and funding process?

Did it had an impact on the speed of the application process?

2.8A

In your view, did the coordination mechanisms support:

Coherence and complementarity amongst the different funded projects

Coherence, complementarity and suitability of the funded projects with the local context (parallel projects and policies)

Coherence and complementarity of the funded projects with local / national / regional development plans

Probe for all: [ask why these mechanisms were or were not supportive]. Which mechanisms were most successful and why was this the case?

2.8C

Would you say that these mechanisms helped to achieve the MoS objectives? What were the main reasons for this?

2.9


April, 2017 149

Project partners

In your view, was the range of MoS beneficiaries adapted to meet the objectives of the programme (i.e. modal shift; support viability, frequency and quality SSS links; accessibility of island region and remote areas; reduction of road congestion)?

Probe If respondent felt beneficiaries weren’t well adapted: Should the scope of beneficiaries have been expanded, concentrated, changed completely or even been better supported to meet the project and policy objectives?

2.4A

Policy framework

In your view did the MoS policy met its objectives in terms of:

Shift from road to maritime transport?

Environmental impact (GHG emissions, air pollution, etc.)?

Launch of additional routes towards island and remote areas?

Social impact (e.g. safety, jobs)?

Probe: if there are multiple evidence of impacts, which made the most headway against targets? (i.e. which were relatively more successful?)

4.1

Did the changes in the MoS policy since 2001 address the changing needs of the SSS sector?

Probe: [if no, changes aren’t meeting needs]

What are the reasons MoS has not met SSS?

When during the 2001-2013 period was this needs gap most prevalent?

4.2

What was the basis for the changes in the MoS policy?

Probe: Was it based on sound studies? Or more an ad-hoc process? Do you feel there are areas of MoS policy that should have been left unchanged?

4.2

In your view, does MoS policy support any other EU transport policy (e.g. national single window, LNG, support to SSS, alternative freight transport, etc.)

Probe: [if yes] what is the extent of the focus? Does this add or detract to the SSS objective?

2.1A, 3.1

Did the changes in MoS policy lead to closer alignment with other EU transport policy?

3.1

How could the MoS policy be better aligned with the broader EU transport objectives?

7.1

In your view, to what extent have the administrative procedures, which apply to maritime transport in the EU, hindered the realisation and exploitation of MoS routes?

Do you have any view of the costs associated with these administrative procedures?

2.7


April, 2017 150

MoS policy in third countries

Do you have any views on the MoS projects that were funded through the EU neighbourhood policy or in third countries (i.e. through ENPI)? What do you feel were the impact of these projects with regards to take-off of MoS in third countries?

Direct impact such as the funding of infrastructure?

Indirect impact such as the support to the development of the right policy framework?

Are there any ways in which these projects could have been improved?

Probe: this could relate to awareness, implementation and coordination with wider objectives

3.2

Did any of the MoS projects within Europe support the take-off of MoS in third countries? Could you provide some examples?

Probe: which were most successful and why?

3.2

How did the MoS policy evolve with regard to the funding of projects in third countries?

3.2

Future outlook

In your view what are the central needs of the EU SSS sector today and in the near future?

7.1

What are the key obstacles / constrains to these needs? 7.2

How could the MoS programme help to meet these needs and solve some of these obstacles and constrains?

Would the existing coordination mechanisms need to be adapted in order to meet the future challenges?

Probe: Are these achievable in the short term?

7.3

How should the MoS programme be further developed to support maritime links and clusters as part of logistics chains at EU, regional and national level?

Probe: what are the main issues developing these links at each level?

7.6

How could the user friendliness of the MoS programme be improved in the future?

7.5

In your view what is the most important added value of the MoS programme? How could this added value be maximised?

Probe: if the added value was not maximised, what were the specific project-level reasons?

5.1, 7.4


April, 2017 151

Topic guide – Project beneficiaries

Interview question Linked to Evaluation Q

Please can you confirm which MoS project(s) you were involved with?

What was / is the final / projected completion date?

Intro

What was your role within the MoS project? Intro

What was the nature of your project?

Are there any ex-post evaluation and/or annual progress report available for your project?

Intro

Do you have evidence of the concrete impact of your project in terms of:


Environmental impact (GHG emissions, air pollution, etc.)?




2.1A, 2.1C, 2.6, 4.1, 5.2

What happened to your project at the end of the financing period?

Did it continue? Stopped? Extended? And for which reasons?

If it was a study, did it lead to any other studies or work?

1.4

Did the project face any difficulty in achieving its objectives?

What were the key challenges?

Probe: change in market dynamics, technical state of available vessels, adequacy of information systems, cooperation between the players in the logistical chain, infrastructure weaknesses within a port, infrastructure connections with the hinterland, port formalities, competition between ports, various time delays and cost factors

What could be done to prevent such challenges in the future?

Probe: would these suggestions to overcome obstacles have been easy to implement from the outset, or would it require a considerable and concerted effort or incur additional costs?

2.5

Project partners

Who were the beneficiaries of the funding within your project?

List the categories of project partners

Probe: Which were more or less involved (i.e. which organisations received the most support?)

1.3

Were any of these organisations a Small or Medium Enterprise?

If yes, how did they benefit from the project?

2.4B

Was this range of beneficiaries adapted to meet the objectives of the 2.4A


April, 2017 152

project? And the objectives of MoS (i.e. modal shift; support viability, frequency and quality SSS links; accessibility of island region and remote areas; reduction of road congestion)

Probe: If respondent felt beneficiaries weren’t well adapted: Should the scope of beneficiaries have been expanded, concentrated, changed completely or even been better supported to meet project objectives?


How did you learn about MoS? 2.8B

Are you aware of the coordination mechanisms which have been put in place by the EC to support the MoS agenda (i.e. five task forces, four corridors, a European coordinator, Commission services, executive agencies)?

2.8A

Have you come into direct contact with any of these coordination mechanisms?

What was the nature of your contact with the coordination mechanism?

Were these mechanisms helpful during your application process?

Did they help you align your project with the local / regional priorities?

Overall would you say that these mechanisms were or were not supportive?

Which mechanisms was most successful and why was this the case?

2.8A, 2.8C, 2.9

Project financing

Were any additional financing instruments used to support your projects (i.e. grants, loans, equity, loan guarantees)?

Were these instruments adapted to your projects?

Did they provide the right incentives to participate to MoS call for proposals?

If not why not?

1.2B, 2.3A

How much additional financing (either public or private or both) associated with the EU funding was needed to realise your project?

2.3B

If you had not receive the EU MoS funding, what would have happened to your project?

Would you have found alternative funding? Or would the project have been cancelled?

Probe: if you would have looked for alternative funding, would this have been easy to secure? Or would you envisage certain difficulties?

5.1

Did your project receive all the funding that was originally allocated to it by TEN-T/Marco Polo/etc.?

If not what were the main reasons for this shortfall in funding?

2.3B

Policy framework and future evolution of SSS

In your view what is the most important added value of the MoS 5.1, 7.4


April, 2017 153

programme? How could this added value be maximised?


In your view has the MoS policy met the needs of the SSS sector since 2001?

Probe if not met: What are the reasons MoS has not met the SSS sector’s needs? When during the 12 years was this the case / more prevalent gap?

4.2

In your view what are the key needs of the EU SSS sector today and in the near future?

7.1

What are the key obstacles / constrains to these needs? 7.2

How could the MoS programme help to meet these needs and solve some of these obstacles and constraints?


Probe: are these changes achievable in the short-term?

7.3

How should the MoS programme be further enhanced to further support the development of maritime links and clusters as part of logistics chains at EU, regional and national level?

7.6

How could the user friendliness of the MoS Programme be improved in the future?

7.5

Other

To what extent have the administrative procedures, which apply to maritime transport in the EU, hindered the realisation and exploitation of MoS routes?

2.7

Do you consider that your project contributed to the EU SSS and alternative freight transport objectives?

2.1A


April, 2017 154

Topic guide – Other stakeholders (Industry associations, MS and local authorities, think thanks, etc.)

Interview question local/MS aut.

Industry ass.

Think tank

Linked to Evaluation Q

Have you been involved in any MoS project so far?

2. Probe: [If yes]:

What was the name of the project and its final / projected completion date?

What was your role in the project and the nature of your involvement (e.g. technical advice? Project support?)?

[If not]:

Are you aware of the MoS policy?

3.

X X X Intro

Project impact

4. Do you have evidence of the concrete impact of MoS projects in terms of:


Environmental impact (e.g. GHG emissions, air pollution, etc.)?



Regularity and frequency of SSS services?

Efficiency of SSS services?

Flexibility of MoS services?


X X 2.1A, 2.1C, 2.6, 4.1, 5.2

5. Would these impacts have been achieved without MoS?

6. Probe: [if yes]

What are the reasons for this?

Are you aware of any other similar programmes in this area?

Did these ‘other programmes’ contribute to the impacts?

7. [if no]

What is unique about the MoS, which has contributed to these impacts?

X X 5.1

8. According to you, did the MoS project encourage X X X 2.2


April, 2017 155


Industry ass.

Think tank


trade flows between EU ports as well as between the EU and third countries?

9. Probe:

[if yes] What are the principal reasons for this?

[if no] What more could have been done foster these trade flows?


10. Are you aware of the coordination mechanisms which have been put in place by the EC to support the MoS agenda (i.e. five task forces, four corridors, a European coordinator, Commission services, executive agencies)?

11. Probe:

Have you come into direct contact with any of these coordination mechanisms?

What was the nature of this contact with the coordination mechanism?

X 2.8A

12. In your view, did these mechanisms facilitate the selection and funding process?

X 2.8A

13. In your view, did these mechanisms increase awareness of MoS among potential beneficiaries? What is the level of awareness within the SSS sector?

Probe: [if respondent felt awareness is low] Do you have any ideas on how to improve awareness?

X 2.8B

14. In your view, did the MoS coordination mechanisms supported:

Coherence and complementarity amongst the different funded projects

Coherence, complementarity and suitability of the funded projects with the local context (parallel projects and policies)

Coherence and complementarity of the funded projects with local / national / regional development plans

Probe for all:

Were these mechanisms supportive or not? Which mechanisms was most successful and why was this the case?

X X 2.8C

15. Would you say that these mechanisms helped to achieve the MoS objectives? What were the main reasons for this?

X X 2.9


April, 2017 156


Industry ass.

Think tank


Policy framework

16. How has the MoS evolved since 2001? Have these changes been addressing the changing needs of the SSS sector?

Probe: [if not changes aren’t meeting needs]

What are the reasons MoS has not met SSS?

When during the 2001-2013 period was this needs gap most prevalent?

X X 4.2

17. What was the basis for the changes in the MoS policy?

Probe: Was it based on sound studies? Or a more ad-hoc process? Do you feel there are areas of MoS policy that should have been left unchanged?

X X 4.2

18. In your view, does MoS policy support any other EU transport policy? (e.g. national single window, LNG, support to SSS, alternative freight transport, etc.)

Probe: [if yes] what is the extent of the focus? Does this add or detract to the SSS objective?

X 2.1A, 3.1

19. How could the MoS policy be better aligned with broader EU transport objectives?

X X X 7.7

20. In your view, to what extent have the administrative procedures, which apply to maritime transport in the EU, hindered the realisation and exploitation of MoS routes?

Do you have any view of the costs associated with these administrative procedures?

X 2.7

MoS policy in third countries

21. Do you have any views on the MoS projects that were funded through the EU neighbourhood policy or in third countries (i.e. through ENPI)? What do you feel were the impact of these projects with regards to take-off of MoS in third countries?

Direct impact such as the funding of infrastructure?

Indirect impact such as the support to the development of the right policy framework?

Are there any ways in which these projects could have been improved?

Probe: this could relate to awareness, implementation and coordination with wider objectives

X 3.2

22. Did any of the MoS projects within Europe support X 3.2


April, 2017 157


Industry ass.

Think tank


to the take-off of MoS in third countries? Could you provide some examples?

23. Probe: which were most successful and why?

Future outlook

24. In your view, what are the central needs of the EU SSS sector today and in the near future?

X X 7.1

25. What are the key obstacles / constrains to these needs?

X X 7.2

26. How could the MoS programme help to meet these needs and solve some of these obstacles and constrains?


Probe: Are these achievable in the short term?

X X 7.3

27. How should the MoS programme be further developed to support maritime links and clusters as part of logistics chains at the EU, regional and national level?

28. Probe: what are the main issues developing these links at each level?

X 7.6

29. How could the user friendliness of the MoS programme be improved in the future?

X X 7.5

30. In your view, what is the most important added value of the MoS programme? How could this added value be maximised?


X 5.1, 7.4


April, 2017 158

Annex 3 Written consultation questionnaires Written questionnaire - Member State Focal Points and Short Sea Promotion Centres for Shortsea Shipping and Motorways of the Sea


April, 2017 159


April, 2017 160

Written questionnaire – Project beneficiaries TEN-T


April, 2017 161

Written questionnaire – Chambers of Commerce


April, 2017 162


April, 2017 163

Written questionnaire – Transport Attaches


April, 2017 164


April, 2017 165


April, 2017 166

Written questionnaire – Trade/ Commerce Attaches


April, 2017 167


April, 2017 168


April, 2017 169

Written questionnaire – Trade/ industry associations


April, 2017 170

Annex 4 List of MoS projects

Table 35. TEN-T projects

Name of project Type of

action

Year of call

Duration Actual costs (€m)

Actual EU contribution

(€m)

MoS corridor

PORTMOS - Integration of the Portuguese Ports and Maritime System in the Motorways of the Sea

Studies 2004 April 2004 -

December 2007 2.4 1.2 South-west Europe

Eastern Mediterranean Motorways of the Sea Master Plan

Studies 2005 n/a

3.7 1.8 South-east Europe

Master Plan MOS in the Baltic Sea Studies 2005 n/a 2.8 1.4 Baltic Sea

Western Europe Sea Transport & Motorways of the Sea (WEST-MOS) Studies 2005

n/a 1.8 0.9

Western Europe

Master Plan Studies for development of the Baltic Sea Information Motorway (BASIS)

Studies 2006 May 2006 -

December 2008 3.0 1.2 Baltic Sea

West Med corridors Studies 2006 October 2006 - December 2010 1.7 0.8

South-west Europe

Motorway of the Sea - High Quality Rail and Intermodal Nordic Corridor Konigslinie

Mixed 2008 January 2008 -December 2011

13.5 2.8 Baltic Sea

Motorways of the Sea projects in the Baltic Sea Area Klaipéda-Karlshamn link

Mixed 2008 August 2008 - December 2014

20.8 4.2 Baltic Sea


April, 2017 171


action

Year of call



(€m)

MoS corridor

Motorways of the Sea Esbjerg - Zeebrugge Works 2008 January 2008 - December 2012

16.9 3.3 Western Europe

Baltic Link Gdynia-Karlskrona Works 2009 January 2009 - October 2013

118.8 17.0 Baltic Sea

MoS 24 - ICT based Co-modality Promotion Center for integrating PP24 into Mediterranean MoS

Studies 2010 February 2011 - December 2013 3.7 1.8

South-west Europe

Monitoring and Operation Services for Motorways of the Sea (MOS4MOS) Studies 2010

March 2011 - May 2012 5.1 2.5 Baltic Sea

MIELE Studies 2010 September 2010 -December 2013 13.4 6.7

Cross-corridor

ITS Adriatic multi-port gateway Studies 2010 April 2010 - June

2013 2.3 1.1 South-east Europe

Motorway of the Sea Rostock - Gedser Mixed 2010 January 2010 - December 2013


The Baltic Sea Hub and Spokes Project Mixed 2010 152.3 11.3 Baltic Sea

MonaLisa Studies 2010 September 2010 -December 2013 23.4 11.2 Baltic Sea

LNG infrastructure of filling stations and deployment in ships Studies 2010

January 2010 - December 2013 42.6 9.6

Western Europe

Adriatic Motorways of the Sea Mixed 2011 January 2011 - 55.3 11.4 South-


April, 2017 172


action

Year of call



(€m)

MoS corridor

(ADRIAMOS) December 2014 east Europe

TrainMoS Studies 2011 January 2011 - September 2013

2.1 1.1 Cross-corridor

LNG in Baltic Sea Ports Studies 2011 January 2012 - December 2014

2.2 1.1 Baltic Sea

COSTA Studies 2011 February 2012 - April 2014


IBUK – Intermodal Corridor Mixed 2011 October 2011 - December 2014


Green Bridge on Nordic Corridor Mixed 2011 January 2011 - December 2014 66.1 15.6 Baltic Sea

Make a Difference Studies 2011 June 2012 –

December 2014 2.5 1.2 Baltic Sea

PILOT SCRUBBER – New Generation Lightweight Pilot Scrubber Solution installed on a Ro-Ro Ship operating on the Motorway of the Baltic Sea

Studies 2012

January 2012 - December 2015

13.6 6.8 Baltic Sea

WiderMoS Studies 2012 June 2013 -December 2015


Sustainable Traffic Machines - On the way to greener shipping

Studies 2012 January 2012 -December 2015

12.9 6.5 Baltic Sea

TWIN-PORT Mixed 2012 January 2012 - 56.3 11.3 Baltic Sea


April, 2017 173


action

Year of call



(€m)

MoS corridor

December 2015

Business to Motorways of the Sea Studies 2012 July 2012 -

December 2015 11.4 5.7 Cross-corridor

Kvarken Multimodal Link - Midway Alignment of the Bothnian Corridor

Mixed 2012 January 2012 - December 2015

20.6 6.1 Baltic Sea

Winter Navigation Motorways of the Sea, WINMOS

Mixed 2012 January 2012 - December 2015


MONALISA 2.0 Studies 2012 January 2012 - December 2015


Methanol: The marine fuel of the future Studies 2012 January 2013 - December 2015


AnNa - Advanced National Networks for Administrations

Studies 2012 January 2012 - December 2015


SEAGAS Studies 2012 January 2012 - December 2015


LNG Rotterdam Gothenburg Works 2012 January 2012 - December 2015


LNG Bunkering Infrastructure Solution and Pilot actions for Ships operating on the Motorway of the Baltic Sea

Mixed 2012 January 2013 - December 2015 74.6 23.1 Baltic Sea

BRIDGE - Building the Resilience of International & Dependent Gateways in Works 2013

January 2013 - December 2015 72.0 14.3

Western Europe


April, 2017 174


action

Year of call



(€m)

MoS corridor

Europe

LNG in Baltic Sea Ports II Studies 2013 January 2014 - December 2015 1.7 0.8 Baltic Sea

Pilot Implementation of a LNG-Propulsion System on a MoS Test Track in the Environmental Model Region 'Wadden Sea'

Studies 2013 January 2013 - December 2015 6.1 3.1

Western Europe

Into the future - Baltic So2lution Studies 2013 October 2013 - December 2015

7.3 3.6 Baltic Sea

Development of North Adriatic ports multimodal connections and their efficient integration into the Core Network (NAPA STUDIES)

Studies 2013

July 2013 -December 2015

5.6 2.8 South-east Europe

Costa II East - Poseidon Med Studies 2013 December 2013 - December 2015 5.1 2.6

South-east Europe

Channel LNG Works 2013 January 2013 - December 2015


TRAINMOS II Studies 2013 August 2014 - December 2015


Sustainable Trelleborg-Swinousjcie MoS services based on upgrading port infrastructure, developing intermodal transport and integrating hinterland corridors

Mixed 2013


10.9 2.2 Baltic Sea


April, 2017 175


action

Year of call



(€m)

MoS corridor

ATLANTICA OPTIMOS Works 2013 April 2014 - December 2015


Sustainable Traffic Machines II – The green link between Scandinavia and Continental Europe

Works 2013 January 2013 - December 2015 11.4 2.3 Baltic Sea

Sustainable Motorway of the Sea Ghent-Gothenburg through environmental upgrade and compliance while maintaining competitiveness of short sea shipping

Works 2013



Sustainable Motorway of the Sea Immingham-Gothenburg through environmental upgrade and compliance while maintaining competitiveness of short sea shipping

Works 2013


12.7 2.5 Baltic Sea

Total 1,471.9 353.1

Table 36. Marco Polo MoS projects

Name of project Description Duration Accepted eligible costs (€m)

Maximum EU contribution/ Total EU contribution paid (€m)

Geographical scope/ programme area

Ro-Ro Past France New regular Ro-Ro service between Zeebrugge (BE) and

September 2007 -November 2012

€106.4 €6.8/ €5.8 Belgium-Spain


April, 2017 176

Name of project Description Duration Accepted eligible costs (€m)

Maximum EU contribution/ Total EU contribution paid (€m)

Geographical scope/ programme area

Bilbao (ES).

FRES MOS Development of a Ro-Pax maritime service between the port of Gijon (ES) and the port of St. Nazaire (FR), predominately for accompanied trailers.

September 2010 - June 2014

€69.0 €4.2/ €0 Spain-France

Gulfstream.MOS Providing a SSS Ro-Pax service between Bilbao and Santander (ES) and Portsmouth (UK).

April 2011 - March 2015

€56.6

€5.6/

€5.6

Spain-United Kingdom

Atlantica Developing a Ro-Ro service between the port of Vigo (ES) and the port of Nantes-St. Nazaire (FR).

October 2014 (delayed – started November 2015) - September 2019

€77.0119 €3.0/ ongoing Spain-France

Total EU contribution €309.0 €19.5/ €11.4120

119 Based on grant agreement 120 Excluding Atlantica – still ongoing


April, 2017 177

Table 37. Interreg MoS projects

Name of project Description Duration Budget (€) Geographical scope/ programme area

SSSAA SSS promotion in the Atlantic Arc (SSSAA) proposes to create solutions encouraging cabotage among the regions of the Atlantic Area, through the creation of new lines for navigation and through energising the existing lines.

May 2003 –April 2005

347,960 / ERDF 198,102 Atlantic Area

ATMOS Atlantic Area Motorway of the Sea (ATMOS) aims to motivate the implementation of SSS lines, improve knowledge of maritime transport possibilities, increase maritime transport, protect the environment, reduce road congestion, improve security and improve communication.

January 2005 – March 2008

1,615,795 / ERDF 916,171

Atlantic Area

InterBaltic The intermodality and interoperability in the Baltic Sea area project promotes a shift of cargo transport from road to efficient intermodal sea/ railway corridors.

December 2005 – December 2007

2,943,694 / ERDF 1,883,320

Baltic Sea

BaSIM Baltic Sea information Motorways of the Sea (BaSIM) aims to promote the concept of the Baltic Sea Motorways by creating a sustainable basis for investments in the Baltic Sea region.

September 2004 – December 2007

1,824,000 / ERDF 1,011,000

Baltic Sea


April, 2017 178


NMC II MONS Initiative by the partners of the ongoing Northern Maritime Corridor (NMC) project in order to contribute to transferring cargo from truck to sea based transport and other intermodal transport modes.

November 2004 – June 2008

2,211,500 / ERDF 1,105,750

North Sea

SUTRANET The overall objective is to establish sustainable and dynamic linkages between new research and development knowledge, concepts and information systems on the one side, and the practical applications and policy decisions on the other side.

February 2004 – March 2007

1,140,000 / ERDF 569,998

North Sea

PLACA 4S The PLACA 4S project aimed to help the performance of the European transport policy expressed in the second White Paper on Transport 2001-2010, promoting intermodal transport services (i.e. "Motorways of the Sea"). The concept of sustainable SSS project PLACA 4S is directly linked to the preservation of the environment.


1,614,376 / ERDF 1,129,645

South West

REPORTS Actions for the development of the maritime transport in the areas of the Western Mediterranean

June 2002 – October 2004

2,603,250 / ERDF 1,404,800

Western Mediterranean


April, 2017 179


StratMoS The project provided input for the Master Plan to be developed by the North Sea MoS Task Force as well as to EU entities. Demonstration projects were carried out in order to demonstrate actions to be taken by public and private actors to improve the effectiveness of inter-modal transport, in particular related to hubs and hinterland connections.


5,820,212/ ERDF 1,909,186

North Sea

Dryport This project aimed to develop, design and set effective hinterland inter-modal freight transport nodes – ‘dryports’ - which were fully integrated with the Gateway freight handling systems, to adapt a public concept to a private sector model, and to integrate dryports into the EU Motorways of the Sea concept.

June 2008 – July 2012

5,533,490/ ERDF 2,766,745

North Sea

Baltic Gateway PLUS: Implementation plan for realizing the Baltic Gateway Quick Start Programme

Baltic Gateway PLUS was a follow up of the Baltic Gateway project. It aimed at joint actions to implement and finance prioritised transport projects in the South Baltic Sea area. Focus was on infrastructure investments in the hinterland connections, as well as


1,083,451/ ERDF 473,000 Baltic Sea


April, 2017 180


on implementation of intermodal services.

PROPOSSE - Promote Ports, SSS & SME Cooperation

The general aim of this project was to promote short sea shipping as a real alternative to other means of goods transportation, the exclusive transportation by road between the SMEs of the hinterlands of the ports of Aveiro, Gijón, Le Havre, Poole and Cork.

January 2009

- December 2010

2,117,800/ ERDF 1,376,570

Atlantic Area

MoS.Med.IA: Τerritorial impact of the motorways of the sea in the Εastern Mediterranean Βasin

The project MoS.Med.IA analysed the impact of MoS on the urban and territorial systems of the Mediterranean regions in order to provide policy makers with wide-reaching economic and territorial information to evaluate TEN-T MoS projects (PP21).

May 2007 - July 2008

1,480,150/ ERDF 856,106 Archimed

InTraDE: Intelligent Transportation for Dynamic Environment

To develop a framework and methodology for the implementation of an Intelligent Autonomous Vehicle (IAV) into small and medium sized seaports.

October 2007 – March 2014

7,033,671/ ERDF 3,516,836

North West Europe

PORTA: PORTs as a gateway for Access inner regions

PORTA aimed to define and implement common strategies and integrated transport/land use planning procedures for increasing the role of ports as strategic key actors of the maritime and

June 2010 - May 2013

1,457,004/ ERDF 1,111,155

Mediterranean


April, 2017 181


logistics development and as a gateway to access the inner regions.

TERCONMED: Container terminals as a key element in the Mediterranean short sea shipping

The project TERCONMED aimed to establish the relation between the Shipping Container Terminals and the Short Sea Shipping (SSS) in the Mediterranean sea basin. The project also put the different national and regional administrations in contact with each other in order to identify customs challenges for this type of transport and also provided some recommendations to the public administrations. Furthermore, the project developed a training proposal for the staff taking part in the SSS.

May 2009 – April 2012

1,531,834/ ERDF 1,162,628

Mediterranean

Source: Based on information contained in the following documents: http://www.keep.eu/keep/ [last accessed 2.12.2015]; http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/maritime/studies/doc/mos/mos_2006_06_09_inventaire_interreg.pdf [accessed 9.3.2015]; http://www.northsearegion.eu/ivb/projects/details/&tid=85 [last accessed 20.3.2015]; http://archive.northsearegion.eu/ivb/projects/details/&tid=79&back=yes [last accessed 3.8.2015]

Table 38. ENPI MoS projects

Name of project Description Duration Budget Geographical scope/ Programme


April, 2017 182


Building the Mediterranean Motorways of the Sea (MEDA-MOS I)

Promotes the Motorways of the Sea concept and the creation of better maritime transport connections in the Mediterranean through support to Ministries, port authorities, customs and relevant private sector stakeholders

Pilot projects implemented in the Western and Eastern Mediterranean

Improved efficiency, regularity and reliability of maritime transport axes and schemes

Increased use of maritime routes

2007-2010 €4.8 million Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Occupied Palestinian Territory, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey

EUROMED

Motorways of the Seas – Black Sea and Caspian Sea

Facilitate trade and transport along the corridor Europe-Black Sea region-Caucasus-Central Asia through improved interoperability and multi-modal transport on the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea. The specific objective is to promote the concept of

2009-2011

€2.5 million Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Ukraine

TRACECA


April, 2017 183


“Motorways of the Sea” in TRACECA countries in order to support efficient intermodal freight transport connecting the Black and Caspian Seas’ neighbouring countries with the enlarged EU territory.

Logistics Processes and Motorways of the Sea II (LOGMOS II) (this builds on LOGMOS I)

Follow-up of three previous TRACECA EU funded project - Motorways of the Sea (MoS) for Black Sea and Caspian Sea. Specific project objectives are:



2011-2014 €5.5 million Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan

(Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey)

TRACECA


April, 2017 184


Targeting regulatory framework and sector reforms for port, maritime and logistics operations as well as introduction of port environmental management systems.

Mediterranean Motorways Mediterranean Motorways of the Seas II (MEDA MOS II)

The overall objective of the project is to give a follow‐up to the first Mediterranean Motorways of the Seas Project. The specific objectives of the projects are:

Contribute to the overall completion of the physical and economic integration of the Euro‐Mediterranean region

Facilitating an efficient flow of goods between the both sides of the Mediterranean.

Adapting the regulatory framework determining port operations, maritime operations and logistical operation

2010-2013 €6 million Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan, Israel,

Occupied Palestinian Territory, Lebanon and Syria (suspended). Associated countries: Turkey, Croatia, Bosnia‐H, Albania and Montenegro

EUROMED


April, 2017 185


OPTIMED Through a virtual logistics platform structured around the ports of Porto Torres (Italy) and Beirut (Lebanon), the OPTIMED project will promote new opportunities, facilities, tools and skills leading to the enhancement of commercial connections amongst public and private operators in Lebanon, Italy, Spain and France. The seven actors part of the project will also develop new tools (such as the organisation of business meetings and the promotion of short sea shipping) thus contributing to a more efficient transport and logistics model, characterised by better delivery times of freight and consequently by greater competitiveness.

December 2013 - December 2015

1,999,403/ programme contribution 1,799,462

Italy, Spain, Lebanon

Mediterranean Sea Basin CBC

CUSTOM MED: Improving the goods circulation between the Middle East and the EU by networking and adopting shared

CUSTOM MED aimed to increase goods circulation among selected Mediterranean ports by developing common customs procedures and

April 2012-September 2014 1,163,186/ programme contribution 1,046,867

Italy, Lebanon,

Spain, Greece,

Jordan

Mediterranean Sea Basin


April, 2017 186


procedures and technologies

increasing the use of ICT technologies. This is, in the long-term, expected to contribute to reducing the length of import-clearing processes reinforcing at the same time the competiveness of the concerned ports.

CBC

SETRACON: SEcuring TRansit CONtainers

SETRACON’s overarching objective was to improve containers’ tracking through a systematic approach, and to introduce standardised security procedures that will enable the immediate and automatic identification and tracking of sealed containers during its transportation between different container terminals. The project aimed to increase the cooperation level among port authorities, and in turn, identify the business processes involved in the security procedures of containers in each port.

July 2013 – July 2015

532,785/ programme contribution 479,507

Greece, Bulgaria, Ukraine

Black Sea Basin CBC

DABS: Danube - Black Sea connection of European and Asian

The general objective of the project was to contribute to the economic development



Romania, Moldova, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Georgia,


April, 2017 187


economy, a step for substantial growth for the Black Sea area

of the area by supporting improved access and better connections of the European and Asian economy among ports within the Danube-Black Sea area.

Greece, Turkey

Black Sea Basin CBC

Restoration of the E40 waterway on the Dnieper-Vistula section: from strategy to planning

The aim of the project was to develop a ‘one priority scenario’ of the Dnieper-Vistula waterway restoration which would consider the interests of all stakeholders in the sphere of transport development in border regions. This would then be developed in cooperation with the interested stakeholders. The project also aimed to raise awareness of the priority scenario of the Dnieper-Vistula waterway restoration on a regional, national and European level, laying down institutional foundations for implementation of further activities aimed at restoration.

December 2013 – November 2015


Belarus, Poland, Ukraine

Poland-Belarus-Ukraine CBC

Source: http://www.keep.eu/keep/; http://www.optimedproject.eu/


April, 2017 188

Table 39. IPA MoS projects

Name of project Description Duration Budget (€) Geographical scope/ programme

AdriaticMos: Developing of Motorways of Sea system in Adriatic region

This project is linked to the East Mediterranean Motorways of the Sea Master Plan (EM MoS MP) which was funded under the TEN-T programme. However, as Croatia did not participate in the original project (as it was not a member of European Union) this project was initiated with the goal of developing an Adriatic Motorways of the Sea Master Plan which would be added to the original Master Plan. Specifically, the objectives of the projects was to conduct a detailed analysis of the current state of infrastructure and transport service on the Adriatic, as well to create several scenarios for the development of transport system on the Adriatic by taking into account national strategic developmental documents in each country and on the basis of the real request for transport. For each scenario, implementation plans were also developed.


1,790,770/ EU contribution 1,522,154

Italy, Slovenia, Croatia, Albania, Montenegro, Greece

Adriatic IPA CBC

ADRIMOB: Sustainable coast MOBility in the ADRIatic area

ADRIMOB aimed at identifying and developing sustainable mobility, the main aim of the


2,881,770/ EU contribution 2,449,504

Italy, Croatia, Montenegro, Greece, Slovenia, Albania,


April, 2017 189


project is to strongly encourage and favour the use of sea transport for passengers both between and along the coasts; to strengthen and integrate the existing infrastructure networks, promote new / complementing links between ports and inland areas; to create new job opportunities; to improve/strengthen the sea routes; to encourage the Public relevant Authorities in the Adriatic area to improve the quality level and the effectiveness of safety of navigation and protection of the marine environment in the whole Adriatic basin.

Adriatic IPA CBC

APC: The Adriatic Port Community

The APC project aimed to develop a system based on the principle of the “Single Window”, namely a facility that allows parties involved in trade and transport to lodge standardised information and documents with a single entry point to fulfil all import, export, and transit-related regulatory requirements. The project aims at improving the effectiveness of the procedures for the clearance of freight flows

March 2011 – June 2013

2,557,000/ EU contribution 2,173,450

Italy, Greece, Croatia,

Adriatic IPA CBC


April, 2017 190


in port areas, through the design, development and testing of a support instrument for ship arrival and departure, customs clearance and cargo logistic.

INTERMODADRIA: Supporting intermodal transport solutions in the Adriatic area

The project objective is the improvement of the integration of the short sea shipping transport in the logistics chains crossing the Adriatic sea, and more specifically the provision of the best environment for the activation on intermodal rail-sea transport services between the ports and their own hinterlands.

October 2012 – February 2015

2,508,000/ EU contribution 2,131,800

Italy, Greece, Albania, Montenegro, Croatia

Adriatic IPA CBC

Source: http://www.keep.eu/keep/

Table 40. FP RTD MoS projects

Name of project Description Duration Budget (€) Geographical scope

REALISE: Regional Action for Logistical Integration of Shipping across Europe

REALISE supported the development of common concepts and strategies, includingthe development and implementation of appropriate technologies across Europe to facilitate the development of short sea shipping.

October 2002 – October 2005

2,098,045/ EU contribution 2,098,045

Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, United Kingdom

FP5 - GROWTH


April, 2017 191


KA2 - Sustainable Mobility and Intermodality

INTEGRATION: Integration of Sea Land Technologies for an Efficient Intermodal Door to Door Transport

The strategic aim of INTEGRATION was to develop demonstrable optimised concepts and integrate new technologies to improve multimodal freight transport and test them in real demo sites, and to reinforce intermodal links with special emphasis on easing, improving and facilitating cargo flows between inland and sea (loading / unloading cargo operations).

August 2002 – July 2005

9,667,211/ EU contribution 5,002,281

Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Italy (coordinator), Poland, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom

FP5 - GROWTH

KA3 - Land transport and marine technologies

LOGBASED: Logistics-based Ship Design

The main aim was to develop Ro-Ro vessels and enable the Motorways of the Sea to become more competitive towards their road/rail equivalents competing for transport missions between origin and destination.


3,028,592/ EU contribution 1,784,651

Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, United Kingdom

FP6-SUSTDEV

3 - Global Change and Ecosystems

CREATE3S: Production to improve total efficiency of new generation short-sea shipping

The aim of CREATE3S was to initiate a new impulse in European Short Sea Shipping and Shipbuilding innovation by realising a new advanced concept in Short Sea Ship design, manufacturing and operating.

December 2006 – February 2011

4,217,990/ EU contribution 2,500,000

France, Germany, Poland, Portugal, Sweden, The Netherlands, United Kingdom

FP6-SUSTDEV


April, 2017 192


3 - Global Change and Ecosystems

PROPS: Promotional Platform for Short Sea Shipping and Intermodality

The PROPS project built on previous EU and national activities undertaken to promote and develop short sea shipping. In particular, PROPS aimed to work closely with the Short Sea Promotion Centres (SPCs) to develop a workable and replicable methodology to enhance their practical promotion activities – in the fields of legislative, technical, and operational actions – and to extend their operations to encompass inter-modal and co-modal transport.

July 2008 – October 2011

2,485,108/ EU contribution 2,309,054

Ireland, Finland, United Kingdom, Bulgaria, Spain, Norway, Portugal, Belgium, Greece, Italy, Germany

FP7 – TRANSPORT

CSA-CA - Coordination (or networking) actions

EU-CARGOXPRESS: Greening of surface transport through an innovative and competitive CARGO-VESSEL Concept connecting marine and fluvial intermodal ports

EU-CargoXpress aimed to develop a ‘ground-breaking innovative’ cargo vessel to meet the expectations of green transport and contributing to decongesting of Europe’s roads.

September 2009 - April 2012

3,811,258/ EU contribution 2,600,788

Germany, Sweden, Norway, Greece, Spain

FP7 – TRANSPORT

CP-FP - Small or medium-scale focused research project

SUPERGREEN: Supporting EU’s Freight Transport Logistics Action Plan on Green

The purpose of the SuperGreen project was to promote the development of European freight logistics in an environmentally

January 2010 - January 2013

3,453,747/ EU contribution 2,643,698

Greece, Norway, Finland, Italy, Spain, Austria, United Kingdom, Portugal, Belgium,


April, 2017 193


Corridors Issues friendly manner. SuperGreen evaluated a series of “green corridors” covering some representative regions and main transport routes throughout Europe.

Sweden, Germany, Ukraine, Turkey

FP7 – TRANSPORT

CSA-CA - Coordination (or networking) actions

ICEWIN: Innovative icebreaking concepts for winter navigation

The objective of the proposal was to find out what benefits can be attained in the level of service of icebreaking assistance, in logistics and especially in oil transports, and with regard to environ-mental emissions and risks, by

a) adopting the new technical solutions, and/or

b) utilising the new type of agreement system

June 2009 - March 2012

729,528/ EU contribution 540,995

Finland, Estonia, Belgium

FP7 – TRANSPORT

CP-FP - Small or medium-scale focused research project

STARNETregio The STARNETregio project was conceived to increase the overall capacity of regional players in the regions Friuli Venezia Giulia (Italy), Slovenia and the County of Rijeka (Croatia) to invest in RTD and carry out research activities concerning the marine industry, in specific the shipbuilding and port equipment,

January 2008 - July 2010

981,697/

EU contribution 799,297

Italy, Slovenia, Croatia

FP7 – TRANSPORT

CSA-SA - Support actions


April, 2017 194


intended to strengthen and develop the sector's scientific and technological basis and ultimately the economic growth of the regions.

MOSES: Motorway of the Sea European Style

The MOSES project treats Sea Motorways as extensions of the land-based TEN-T. The freight carried along the sea motorways is destined to or carried from economic hinterlands across Europe. The sea motorways are key parts of the European logistic supply chains that are themselves part of global logistic supply chains. They are an integral part of the door to door transport chains that establish the functionality of these logistic supply chains. The organisational and technological efficiencies of all the elements of the logistic supply chains, and particularly the interfaces indicated above, will be key aspects to be addressed by MOSES.

June 2007 - May 2010 (discontinued December 2008)

14,079,958/

EU contribution:

7,998,822

Norway, Greece, Belgium, United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, Cyprus, Portugal, Germany, Poland, Ireland, Switzerland, Finland, Turkey, France, Sweden

FP6-SUSTDEV

IP - Integrated Project

ICOMOB: Icebreaker Cooperation on the Motorway of the Baltic Sea

The project sought to promote:

the development of winter navigation on the motorway of the Baltic Sea as a part of the

April 2005 -March 2006

143 000/ EU contribution 143,000

Finland, Estonia

FP6-SUSTDEV

SSA - Specific Support Action


April, 2017 195


TEN-network,

safety by taking account of environment and accident risks related to winter navigation,

European competitiveness by improving, developing and ensuring connections to growing markets of Russia (Pan- European Corridor 9A)

participation of the candidate country of Estonia and Latvia in traffic and research co-operation.

TEFLES: Motorways of the Sea European Style Technologies and Scenarios For Low Emissions Shipping

TEFLES addressed both sea and at port emissions scenarios by developing after treatment technologies and combining a selection of innovative and promising technologies with potential high impact, integrating them and assessing their impact with models on sea and port operation scenarios.


3,038,611/ EU contribution 2,259,405

France, Germany, Spain, The Netherlands, United Kingdom

FP7 - TRANSPORT

Horizontal activities for implementation of the transport programme

KNOWME: The European Academic and Industry Network for Innovative Maritime Training, Education and R&D

The main objectives of KNOWME were to maintain and enrich the knowledge capital of the European Maritime sector by identifying knowledge enablers; improve opportunities for innovative education and


2,047,392/ EU contribution 1,498,044

Belgium, Bulgaria, Finland, Germany, Greece, Spain, The Netherlands, United Kingdom

FP7-TRANSPORT


April, 2017 196


training; and carrying out research for image improvement.

CP - Collaborative project (generic)

Source: CORDIS Projects and Results Service


April, 2017 197

Annex 5 Reference project fiches

The following annex includes project fiches for the 25 reference projects (funded under TEN-T, Marco Polo, Interreg and ENPI) selected for more in-depth analysis. The project fiches presented below are based on information from project websites, INEA project fiches, project beneficiary interviews and project final reports (where available).

TEN-T

Project reference: Master Plan MOS in the Baltic Sea - 2005-SE- 91406-S

Type of project: Studies

Implementation schedule: Start date: June 2005

End date: January 2010

Member states involved: Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Sweden

Source of financing: TEN-T Annual Programme

Share of the different sources of financing:

Total actual project cost: €2,840,000

Actual EU contribution: €1,420,000

Percentage of EU support: 50%

Beneficiaries of the funding and nature of these beneficiaries

Swedish Maritime Administration – National Administration

Finnish Maritime Administration – National Administration

Brief description from TEN-T records and other project descriptions

The development of the Motorways of the Baltic Sea was a long-term joint task for the Baltic Sea countries and this project was the first phase in the development process and provided an important input for the further development of a master plan for the Motorways of the Sea concept in the Baltic Sea region. The main objective of this project was to develop a framework – “a masterplan”- to provide a basis for further and more detailed planning of the development of the Motorways of the Sea concept for the Baltic Sea region.

Data on the impact of the project on road congestion; modal shift from road to maritime freight transport; and/ or the regularity, frequency, efficiency and flexibility of the transport offer in the project area:

Provided the basis for TEN-T project proposals in the Baltic Sea corridor, including WINMOS and MonaLisa.


April, 2017 198

Project reference: Motorways of the Sea Esbjerg – Zeebrugge - 2008-EU-21020-P

Type of project: Works

Implementation schedule:

Start date: January 2008

End date: December 2012

Member states involved:

Belgium, Denmark

Source of financing: TEN-T Multi Annual Programme






Port of Zeebrugge – Port Authority

Port of Esbjerg – Port Authority

Danish Road Directorate – National Administration

SPF Mobility and Transport Belgium - Federal Overheidsdienst Mobiliteit in B Vervoer – National Administration


The maritime link between Esbjerg, Denmark and Zeebrugge,Belgium, in service since 2005, has provided an intermodalalternative to truck transport between Denmark and theBenelux countries.

This project has been further developed into a Benelux-Scandinavia shortsea bridge. The upgrade of the serviceconsisted in the coordinated increase of the frequency on theZeebrugge-Esbjerg route, investment in infrastructure andfacilities and the adoption of accompanying measures to fosterintegration of various parts of the intermodal chain.

This included an increase in service by doubling of the capacityof the Ro-Ro (roll on, roll off) connection between Esbjerg andZeebrugge. A Motorways of the Sea approach merits in costsavings (up to some 40%) and less CO² emissions (58%) thanthe alternative road connection. In addition, it reducedcongestion on very busy parts of the EU road network.

The investment in infrastructure and facilities associated withthe upgrade of the maritime link consisted in a floating Ro-Roramp, the extension of an access way in Esbjerg, a Ro-Ro jetty,gantry cranes and ICT development in Zeebrugge. The projectgave way to major improvements in the handling of goods andattracted more goods on the Ro-Ro based intermodal concept.

Data on the impact of the project on road congestion; modal shift from road to maritime freight transport; and/ or the

Whilst an increase in maritime transport has been observed theimpact on road transport in this particular corridor is unclear.There are no data to support either increased or reduced roadcongestion.

In terms of modal shift, the traffic on the line between Esbjergand Zeebrugge was monitored on a regular basis. The volumesand average loading of ships on the line increased significantly


April, 2017 199

Project reference: Motorways of the Sea Esbjerg – Zeebrugge - 2008-EU-21020-P regularity, frequency, efficiency and flexibility of the transport offer in the project area:

from the start of the service in 2005. Growth of approximately35% was realised on the route between 2007 and 2011, thoughthe economic climate was still close to recession, and the roadtransportation market was characterized by an excess capacityof units. However, it is hard to isolate the specific impact theMoS project had on modal shift.

Improvements in services were observed by beneficiaries aswell as higher frequency or increased vessel capacities.

Additional impact assessment, evaluation and/or feasibility studies associated with the project

The Steering Group prepared two notes on the KPI for thisproject. These notes included traffic figures, modal shift,environmental performance, efficiency of transport and cargohandling services and administrative simplification. These noteswere presented to the TEN-T EA.

Project reference: Baltic Link Gdynia-Karlskrona - 2009-EU-21010-P




End date: October 2013


Sweden, Poland

Source of financing: TEN-T Multi-Annual Programme






Stena Line Scandinavia AB – Shipping Company

Municipality of Alvesta – Local Authority

Municipality of Karlskrona – Local Authority

Regional Council of Southern Småland – Local Authority

Swedish Transport Administration – National Administration

Swedish Ministry of Enterprise, Energy and Communications – National Administration

Polish Ministry of Infrastructure – National Administration


The objective of the Action was to implement the Motorways of the Sea project in the Baltic Sea Region through the ports of Karlskrona and Gdynia. The project aimed at reducing the amount of freight using the northern European motorways and will diminish the related road congestion.

The Action wanted to deliver high-quality Motorways of the Sea infrastructure and services by combining the rail and sea modes of transport in order to eliminate the existing bottlenecks and to create a seamless intermodal transport chain. The project's expected results were an increase in the


April, 2017 200

Project reference: Baltic Link Gdynia-Karlskrona - 2009-EU-21010-P intermodal share of the corridor from the 3% to 10% in 2015 and 36% in 2025.

The activities of the Action focused on the following particular objectives, namely to:

Increase the train capacity for goods on the Scandinavian and Polish side Eliminate inadequate intermodal capacity on the Karlskrona-Gdynia link taking an important step towards an intermodal transport chain connecting Scandinavia with central Europe and the Adriatic Sea

Develop transport nodes in Alvesta, Karlskrona and Gdynia that will concentrate transport flows and achieve rail bound volumes that are economically profitable

Promote intermodal solutions on their respective markets that can mitigate road congestion, particularly in Germany

Eliminate conflict of interest between freight and passenger trains between Gothenburg and Karlskrona/Kalmar on the coast-to-coast line in Sweden Offer a missing link to TEN-T corridors by further connecting the Baltic Sea in a north-south dimension

Harmonise the IT systems between the ports and other operators by further developing the Stena Line e-freight platform and move towards Single window


The Action and its Activities has focused on preparing the infrastructural capacity and opportunities for intermodal traffic on the Baltic-Link, including its hinterland connections. In this respect it has fulfilled the objectives set up in the application. However, achieving a modal shift from road to rail transportation requires long-term engagement and perseverance where the demand-side (transportation buyers) must understand the opportunities and experience competitive, supply-side deliveries in order to act towards intermodal solutions. The supply-side foresees that there will be slow increase of intermodal traffic until it reaches a tipping point that triggers a sudden, but rapid growth. The trend on the link shows an overall increase of goods where unaccompanied units (intermodal) growth is higher than the accompanied.

Number of trains per week at the intermodal terminal in Karlskrona:

2011 = 0 / 2012 = 0 / 2013 = 0 / 2014 = 1

Number of reloads per week at the terminal in Alvesta

2011 = 80 / 2012 = 83 / 2013 = 81 / 2014 = 97

Number of goods trains on the Coast to coast line, Emmaboda-Karlskrona

2011 = 0 / 2012 = 0 / 2013 = 6 / 2014 = 96

Total volume of accompanied and unaccompanied goods carried by the ferries

Accompanied: 2011 = 74.955 / 2012 = 81.011 / 2013 =


April, 2017 201

Project reference: Baltic Link Gdynia-Karlskrona - 2009-EU-21010-P 94.954 / 2014 = 107.565

Unaccompanied: 2011 = 5.960 / 2012 = 5.853 / 2013 = 7.895 / 2014 = 9.367

.


Concerning the respect of the environmental aspects, during the implementation of the actions internal environmental audits have been carried out.

Then, calculations for reduction of CO2, SOX and NOX as a result of decreased lorry traffic and power connection in the Port were part of the Key Performance Indicators of the Action. The annual decrease in emissions at the Port of Karlskrona was around 30% for CO2, SOX and NOX. This was a result of using green electricity.

Project reference: MonaLisa - 2010-EU-21109-S



Start date: September 2010



Denmark, Finland, Sweden








Finnish Transport Agency – National Administration

Danish Maritime Safety Administration – National Administration

SAAB TransponderTech AB – Specialised Consultancy

SSPA Sweden AB – Specialised Consultancy

Chalmers tekniska högskola AB – Academic & Research

GateHouse A/S – Specialised Consultancy


This Action was fully in line with the Strategy for the Baltic Sea region and addressed and implemented its concrete needs and flagship projects. This project was built on the experiences and results of the previous Motorway of the Sea (MoS) actions in the Baltic Sea and contained studies taking form of pilot actions that were of wider benefit.

The Action aimed at improving quality of maritime transport, safety at sea, exchange of maritime data and facilitation of environmental performance of shipping and implementation of e-Maritime relevant applications.


April, 2017 202

Project reference: MonaLisa - 2010-EU-21109-S

The project was expected to deliver:

A new methodology in maritime route planning, similar to air navigation. The related activity aims to define, develop and test a model in route planning based on existing Electronic Nautical Charts and Automatic Identification System.

A new pilot system of automated verification of ship crew certificates. A concept model for an automatic verification system monitoring officer’s certificates and time on watch will be designed.

Re-surveys of HELCOM fairways in the Baltic Sea leading to harmonised distribution of survey data and water level information. Re-survey of HELCOM fairways and Baltic Sea port areas will be carried out with modern quality methods to ensure correct depth presented in existing sea charts and improve safe navigation for large vessels.

A pilot system for sharing maritime data at a global scale. The related activity aims to develop and test a functional demonstrator system with the final objective to extend the sharing of maritime information to a global scale as well as expanding the scope of maritime information shared between maritime authorities in accordance with their needs.

The Action was implemented by Sweden, Finland and Denmark, but it remained open to other potential participants in the Baltic Sea region or participating in already established MoS projects.


There has been an impact with regard to the efficiency and safety. The project mapped the sea ground, which is crucial for navigation around shallow areas in the Baltic Sea. The re-surveys will inform the TMS and increase shipping safety as well as protection of the marine environment.


Results of MonaLisa and MonaLisa 2.0 have been taken forward into new projects. The STM concept, developed through MonaLisa, will be tested across 300 vessels in the new CEF project.


April, 2017 203

Project reference: LNG infrastructure of filling stations and deployment in ships - 2010-EU-21112-S






Denmark, Belgium







Danish Maritime Authority – National Administration

Flemish Ministry of Mobility and Public Works – National Administration

Fjord Line Danmark A/S – Shipping Company


The project is a strategic study taking the form of a pilot action in relation to the implementation of the Motorways of the Sea. It emerged as a project under the European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region but its geographical scope has been expanded with the North Sea and the English Channel because of the trading between these areas and because of the Emission Control Area provisions setting more restrictive limits on sulphur and nitrogen oxides emissions from 2010, 2015 (for SOx) and 2016 (for NOx) in the related ECAs.

The project consists of feasibility studies on LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas) filling station infrastructure as well as a full scale pilot action. The study part of project will create a strategic decision paper relevant for central stakeholders, aiming at developing framework conditions for the use of LNG for ships and will validate a full scale pilot action aiming at demonstrating the LNG option as competitive fuel from shipping and an LNG supply chain points of view. The project further aims at harvesting positive environmental and climate effects.

The aim of the full scale pilot project is to modify the design of two new build vessels to a LNG propulsion system, a more environmentally friendly system, which is in line with the requirements of the revised Annex VI of MARPOL 73/78 adopted by The International Maritime Organization (IMO) in 2008.

This will be the first time that a Ro/Pax vessel of this size (1350 lane metre for trucks) will be built with LNG propulsion. The pilot action will be followed by an extensive measurement programme for validating its environmental and climate benefits as LNG contains no sulphur and emits 90% less NOx than traditional fuels and CO2 can be reduced by up to 25%.


April, 2017 204

Project reference: LNG infrastructure of filling stations and deployment in ships - 2010-EU-21112-S

The lessons learnt from the project are foreseen to have a wider benefit also for other geographical areas within the EU, demonstrating that LNG propulsion is achievable for a larger Ro-Pax vessel and could play an important role in further implementation of LNG in similar vessels throughout Europe on short international routes, as well as for domestic traffic.


The existing service was maintained and the two deployed ferries were converted into LNG driven (‘pilot project’). The expected demand for the two LNG ferries regarding passengers and freight exceeded expectations which is likely to have contributed in modal shift from road to sea (not measured in quantitative terms).

A small scale LNG bunkering facility was built in Hirtshals with TEN-T support which offered a better flexibility for ship operators in terms of bunker planning.

Additional impact assessment, evaluation and/or feasibility studies associated with the project:

The study contributed to policy discussions about the implementation of LNG as fuel.

The development of a small scale liquefaction in Hirtshals has been analysed and initiated within the project.

Project reference: Motorway of the Sea Rostock-Gedser- 2010-EU-21107-P

Type of project: Mixed: studies and works





Germany, Denmark







Hafen-Entwicklungsgesellschaft Rostock mbH – Terminal Operator

Scandlines – Shipping Company

Danish Road Directorate – National Administration


The Action was part of a global project, covering infrastructure initiatives on the transport axis Copenhagen-Berlin: extension of railway Rostock-Berlin, upgrading of European road E55 into the port of Rostock, introduction of new ferries. The wider project is linked to TEN-T Priority Project 1 (rail axis Berlin-Verona/Milano-Bologna-Napoli-Messina-Palermo).


April, 2017 205

Project reference: Motorway of the Sea Rostock-Gedser- 2010-EU-21107-P

This transport axis has seen a growing demand. Ferries were operated at capacity limits and had reached the end of their technical lifetime. They have been replaced by new ferries (in 2012), which doubled capacity and improved operational reliability, environmental performance and service costs.

Additionally, the link had to cope with changing framework conditions. The Fehmarnbelt axis (Priority Project 20) induced additional competition and modal back-shift. The limitation of sulphur content6 in ship fuels in the Baltic Sea (2015) expected to result in significantly rising sea freight rates. Both developments had a projected negative impact on the competitiveness of the link unless investments are made in port infrastructure and vessels.

The ‘traffic machine’ concept of high frequency (9 departures per port per day) and short turnaround times of approx. 15 minutes must be ensured. To warrant this top performance, purpose built port infrastructure and vessels were required. Additionally, the investments should allow the development of intermodal traffic, which is expected to reach 6% of the link’s annual traffic (2017).

Finally, the E55 crossing the city of Nykøbing Falster was a bottleneck and an obstacle to the efficiency of the transport corridor. A new bypass road will have removed this bottleneck, improving road safety, ensuring mobility of freight and passengers and reducing the environmental impact.

This Action consisted in infrastructure investments in the ports of Rostock and Gedser and the Nykøbing Falster bypass road


The by-pass road around the city of Nykøbing Falster shall reduce the number of vehicles using bottleneck E55 through the city. No concrete data is available.

The aim of the project was vice versa, i.e. through improving the competitiveness of the existing service avoidance of a modal shift from ‘sea to road’ was envisaged and obviously achieved.

The efficiency of the existing service was enhanced, i.e. through an achievement of frequency of 18 trips/ day at higher capacity; freight, cars and passenger traffic volumes


The MoS project Motorway of the Sea Rostock-Gedser - Part 2 was initiated based on the first one.


April, 2017 206

Project reference: ITS Adriatic multi-port gateway - 2010-EU-21106-S



Start date: April 2010

End date: June 2013


Italy, Slovenia







Venice Port Authority – Port Authority

Ravenna Port Authority – Port Authority

Trieste Port Authority – Port Authority

Port of Koper – Port Authority


The Northern Adriatic Ports Association (NAPA) agreed to develop a study, including a pilot action, focused on the future deployment of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) solutions enabling an efficient information exchange between the NAPA ports, including eventually the port of Rijeka, and all the actors involved in the intermodal transport processes.

The ultimate aim of the study consisted in the creation of a prototype of a common e-platform based on the development of a NAPA web portal for data sharing, integrated with enhanced NAPA port community systems and with an EDI application, in order to allow the interconnection among the ports’ systems, according to common standards and technical requirements defined on the basis of a ports’ process analysis.

The prototype was the first step of a more complex system with a view to extending the system performance step-by-step, towards the concept of “one-stop-shopping”. At full capacity, the NAPA portal should be able to provide a wealth of information, facilitating and speeding up the completion of formalities, thus serving as an example for other EU port clusters.


The project has to be considered as a “pilot Action” and therefore no direct or concrete impact in terms of reduced road congestion, modal shift, new routes or environmental impact has been recorded.


April, 2017 207

Project reference: ITS Adriatic multi-port gateway - 2010-EU-21106-S


The major progress brought by the project has been in improving the overall ‘readiness’ of the Northern Adriatic Ports towards the future integrations with national and regional level Single Window.

A secondary impact was the creation and the improvement of the existing Port Community Systems at the ports along with the design and development of an Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) platform for integration and data sharing between the ports.

Project reference: MIELE - 2010-EU-21105-S






Italy, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Cyprus







MIT Ministry of Transport (IT, public)

Grimaldi Napoli (IT, private)

Terminal San Giorgio (IT, private)

IB (IT, ICT company, private)

CAP (IT, ICT company, private)

Cyprus Port Authority (CY, public)

Jacobs University (DE, private)

ATLAS (DE, private)

DBH logistics (DE, private)

Port Authority of Gijon (ES, public)

Cimne (ES, ICT company, private)

Compass (ES, ICT company, private)

Plaza (ES, private)

Instituto Portuario e dos transportes maritimos (PT, public)

Port Authority of Lisboa (PT, public)

Port Authority Doureo & Leixoes (PT, public)


The main objectives of the action were to design and to develop a pre-deployment pilot for an interoperable ICT platform (the “MIELE Middleware”) able to interface ICT systems (i.e. single windows, port community systems) in


April, 2017 208

Project reference: MIELE - 2010-EU-21105-S Italy, Portugal, Spain, Cyprus and Germany (the “National Vertical Pilots”).

The Action, which was a study taking the form of a Pilot action, included:

mapping the needs of relevant stakeholders

designing and developing the MIELE middleware

adapting, upgrading and integrating existing ICT systems in order to be interoperable with the MIELE middleware

achieving and demonstrating systems interoperability through the MIELE middleware

designing the framework for the exploitation of the MIELE middleware and the possible full deployment of its services after the completion of this pilot action

The Action was organised in two parts:

PART A (activities 1 and 2) – Verification of existing ICT systems and pre-implementation phase of the pilot

PART B (activities 3 and 4) – Deployment of a full-scale, integrated and interoperable demonstrator (MIELE Middleware Demonstrator) resulting from the integration of the 5 National Vertical Pilots with the MIELE Middleware according to the specifications of Action PART A

The continuation of the financial aid from PART A to PART B was conditional to the approval by the TEN-T Agency of the results of Part A, which should demonstrate the feasibility of the deployment of a full-scale, integrated and interoperable demonstrator (MIELE Middleware Demonstrator).


As to the type of impacts specified, it is important to bear in mind that the above projects implement framework conditions and related impacts cannot be directly quantified but they create the basis of infrastructural projects generating those impacts.


Miele has paved the way to follow-up Actions approved in the 2013 MAP of Motorways of the Seas, namely AnNa, B2MOS and WiderMOS.


April, 2017 209

Project reference: Monitoring and Operation Services for Motorways of the Sea (MoS4MoS) - 2010-EU-21102-S



Start date: March 2011

End date: May 2012


Spain, Italy, Greece, Slovenia







Multimodal transport operator / logistics (incl. terminals):

Autoterminal S.A

Asta Logistik, S.L

IFS

Interporto Bologna SpA

Interporto Toscano Amerigo Vespucci SpA

Luka Koper d.d, Port and Logistics System

Intereuropa Global Logistics Service

National Administration

Swedish Transport Administration

Specialised consultancy / engineering company:

CIMNE; Circle

Corporación Marítima Lobeto Lobo SL

Oceanfinance

Compass Ingeniería y Sistemas S.A.

Indra Sistemas S.A.

Global Maritime Agenc

Atlantica Spa di Navigazione

Academic and research centres:

Fundación ValenciaPort

Escola Europea de Short Sea Shipping;

Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya;

University of Piraeus Research Centre


The MoS4MoS project was a pilot action primarily aimed at preparing the different key stakeholder systems (ports and terminals, railways, rail freight stations, maritime carriers, short sea consolidation centres, etc) to provide integrated and interoperable services for door-to-door MoS supply chains.

The main objective of the MoS4MoS Action was to design and


April, 2017 210


demonstrate a set of prototypes that will improve the operational coordination of transport flows and facilitate tight co-ordination between the various administrative services and operators at port level.

The test prototypes has been applied to existing door-to-door MoS supply chains in the Mediterranean region, namely in: Spain-Italy, Spain-Slovenia, Spain-Greece, Slovenia-Greece and Italy-Greece. They addressed two different types of traffic: Ro-Ro and containerised freight.

MoS4MoS will identify current constraints and bottlenecks in MoS corridors for both types of traffic and will propose actions to improve the current situation through the use of information and communication technologies. It was in particular interested in defining ICT solutions that can become standards flexible enough to be applied widely.

More specifically, the goals of the Action were:

Facilitating and simplifying the compliance with regulations of companies in a door-to-door MoS supply chain

Improving the exchange of information of public and private organisations to increase the efficiency of ports as MoS gateways

Improving the operational cooperation of the actors of the different transport modes in a door-to-door MoS supply chain

Providing a set of monitoring services for the door-to-door MOS supply chains

Promoting and supporting sustainable intermodal transport solutions that reinforce the door-to-door MOS supply chains


A cost-benefit analysis of the prototypes included in the initiatives integrated in MOS4MOS was carried out at the end of the project. Although the modal shift was not specifically quantified, the previous benefits could be translated into a reduction of the cost of intermodal maritime transport and to modal shifts.

The cost-benefit analysis, which included in the initiatives integrated in MOS4MOS, was carried out at the end of the project. It showed that - even using very conservative hypotheses, and assuming the implementation of these initiatives only in the port communities participating in the project - the net present value of putting into practice the MOS4MOS solutions instead of continuing using the current combination of procedures and practices was over 20.5 million Euros. In June 2015, the cost-benefit analysis was updated including real figures for those initiatives already implemented. The Net Present Value of the 10 implemented initiatives amounts to 49 million Euros and the TEN-T Multiplying Factor is 18.74 Euros. The main benefits measured in the cost-benefit analysis were related to time savings and reduction of errors in the addressed processes.


April, 2017 211



The project has been considered successful by all partners, stakeholders participating in the Action pilots and Member States signing the final report. Many initiatives have been implemented at the end of the project, both by partners of the Action and by external stakeholders that participated in the pilots. Spanish Customs has implemented the e-T2L. This proves the capacity of the consortium to reach the expected objectives.

The project contributed to alleviating the administrative burden associated to MoS. For instance, the adoption of the electronic T2L in Spain has been possible thanks to MOS4MOS.

Project reference: MOS 24 - 2010-EU-21101-S



Start date: February 2011



Italy, France, Belgium, Malta





Percentage of EU support: Studies: 49%


Autorità Portuale di Genova – Port Authority

Selex Elsag – Specialised Consultancy

Communauté Urbaine Nice Côte d’Azur – Regional Authority

Fondazione SLALA – Logistics

C.I.E.L.I. – Other Businesses

Malta Freeport Terminals – Maritime Transport Operator

Regione Liguria – Regional Authority

UIRNet – Logistics

Crossrail Italia – Rail Transport Operator

Hupac – Rail Transport Operator

Universiteit Antwerpen – Academic & Research

Captrain Italia – Rail Transport Operator

Italian Department of Transport – National Administration


The Action was a study, which took the form of a Pilot Action. Its main objective was to enhance the strategic role of the Priority Project 24 (Railway axis Lyon/Genova-Basel-Duisburg-Rotterdam/Antwerpen) of the TEN-T network, as main gate to


April, 2017 212

Project reference: MOS 24 - 2010-EU-21101-S Europe for the traffic of goods transported via the Mediterranean Motorways of the Sea (MedMos).

The goal was to create a “unique ICT multimodal Corridor between northern and southern Europe” by connecting virtually the PP 24 with MedMoS. The Action analysed the bi-directional transfer of goods from central Europe to Med Countries and to Med ports through the combination of PP24 and the network of MoS, which interconnected to each-other through the Ligurian-French Port system.

The Pilot Action developed the demonstrator of an interoperability platform (MoS24) for interconnecting existing ICT modules and making them interoperable, and delivered a service to users through the virtual MoS24 Co-modality Promotion Centre (CPC).

MOS24 CPC aimed at giving an example of multimodal ICT services offered to the transport community. The action was carried out in three main phases, namely:

analysis of the demand along the corridor

review of existing subsystems and missing links, followed by the development and testing of an early version

the pilot demonstrator, consisting of the virtual CPC for the Southern Gateway

The MoS24 Project worked closely with the MIELE project, fostering synergies between the Med ICT projects, to avoid duplications and optimise the results. Moreover, the project remained open to cooperate with other ICT and e-freight actions.


The objectives of the project was to increase the efficiency of the multimodal chain which leads to an improvement of the maritime transport competitiveness but no official evidence of impact has been recorded.


The platform developed is available in the Port Authority server and it was and is used along with other instruments to develop a number of others independent projects.

With regard to the study on the Evaluation of impacts, the main outcome was that the natural MoS markets, without any encouraging policy measure, are subject to competition from road transport. The combined use of MoS and road in the intermodal transport reduces the carrier’s cost deriving from the pollutant and the socio-economical impact and has thus a direct impact on the growth of MoS market.


April, 2017 213

Project reference: The Baltic Sea Hub and Spokes Project - 2010-EU-21108-P

Type of project: Mixed: studies and work





Sweden, Denmark, Estonia




Actual EU contribution : €11,314,552



Municipality of Aarhus – Local Authority

Port of Gothenburg – Port Authority

Trafikverket – National Administration

APM Terminals Gothenburg AB – Terminal Operator

Port of Tallinn – Port Authority


The EU strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (BSR) is an important tool for bringing about closer, more coordinated and more focused cooperation, which will enable regions in eight Member States to plan, prioritize and implement activities, towards the same goals, in a more coordinated way.

This is why the Ports of Aarhus, Gothenburg and Tallinn have proposed a common Hub and Spokes concept under Motorways of the Sea. This concept was the backbone of the Action. The project was an ambitious, contemporary and far-sighted action to create the necessary framework for an integrated maritime transport system, promoting and supporting a cost-effective and efficient door-to-door transport solution, linking trade to transport and facilitating growth in the entire BSR.

Building stronger hubs in the BSR with strong feeder relations allow to attract direct calls by global carriers, safeguard the development of the BSR and relieve the pressure on the continental hubs and thereby allocate more capacity to handle their natural hinterland. Moreover, the Action dealt with important transport challenges, such as the massive flow in container and trailer traffic on over-burdened European road systems.

The action consisted in 4 main activities: The Marine Integration Project (MIP), Port Access Aarhus, Port Access Gothenburg and Port Security Tallinn.

Thus, the main objectives of the action were to facilitate an efficient, environmentally friendly and attractive intermodal transport solution for the BSR and to improve access to markets in BSR. This would have increased possibilities for trade and growth in the region and, in direct continuation


April, 2017 214

Project reference: The Baltic Sea Hub and Spokes Project - 2010-EU-21108-P

hereof, an increase in the flow of goods by sea would have helped the BSR feeder ports grow and develop and make the BSR countries more competitive. i.e., the initiative have not only boosted the economy by facilitating trade but also helped make the BSR more resilient to shocks generated externally.

The Baltic Sea Hub and Spokes system was a joint project of the ports of Gothenburg, Aarhus and Tallinn. In a wider perspective and in a later phase, the action will also aim to include other ports in the Baltic Sea geographical area and neighbouring countries.


Port Gothenburg; By the Action, increased focus has been made on upgrading the land infrastructure to the port. Investments in road and rail connections to the port has led to an improvement in access and support the current and forecasted increase in volumes. The rail shuttle system has been limited by insufficient rail infrastructure with great deficiencies in its current design. Thus, the Action has supported the upgrade of signalling and interlocks to increase the capacity in the railway link ‘Hamnbanan’. Furthermore, preparatory works on increasing capacity of the intermodal terminals within the container port has been part of the Activity.

The impact from the implementation of the Action is difficult to measure. By looking at the historical trend and developments that has been made in the ports of Aarhus and Gothenburg during the last 10-12 years, it seems that the activities implemented will make a valuable contribution to secure the port efficiency. The competition from other ports in the BSR to attract deep-sea calls may not only cause negative effects to the development of the hub and spokes system. The strong development of other ports (Klaipeda, Stockholm/Norvik, and Tallinn) in the Baltic Sea Region should be seen as important synergies to the Baltic Sea Hub and Spokes concept. It takes time to establish feeder connections between ports and by this said the hub can’t be developed on its own without strong cooperation with the feeder ports of the region.

Project reference: TrainMoS - 2011-EU-21004-S




End date: September 2013


Italy, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Germany, Sweden, United Kingdom






April, 2017 215




City of Gothenburg – Local Authority

Regione Liguria – Regional Authority

Organismo Público Puertos del Estado – National Administration

Specialised consultancy / engineering company:

IMNE

Circle

Corporación Marítima Lobeto Lobo SL

Oceanfinance

Academic and research centres:

Universidad Politécnica de Madrid

Faculdade de Ciências Sociais Humanas

National Technical University of Athens

Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH

Università degli Studi di Genova

Edinburgh Napier University

Chalmers Tekniska Hoegskola


TrainMoS aimed at supporting and training the human element of Motorways of the Sea by defining the basis for a future EU virtual open MoS University and by pulling together local competences and knowledge of different EU universities along with stakeholders' needs.

TrainMoS developed an MoS knowledge base at EU university level by testing an e-learning MoS knowledge platform (within an ICT learning infrastructure) through the preparation of seven EU wide pilot actions by seven Member States (Spain, Portugal, Sweden, Germany, United Kingdom, Italy, and Greece). The participation of the seven universities and their students created a critical mass which allowed the development and testing of an European academic module in 7 MoS related subjects that should meet the needs of the freight transport industry actors.

Each pilot action was developed under the following titles: Port terminals and hinterland links; Smart cities and intelligent ports; Green ports and efficient ICZM; Multimodality and sustainable logistics; Multimodal transport economics; Safety and security; and Logistic Chains and Modal Integration.

Each pilot action, coordinated by the TrainMoS structure and taking into consideration stakeholders' needs, fed the MoS Knowledge ICT Platform and produced university level courses which could be followed by students in the seven Universities with lecturing professors coming both from the University and stakeholders.


April, 2017 216



The results obtained from the project, from a general point of view, are divided in two main parts:

A platform of knowledge was created with the main features of the Motorways of the Sea, firstly fed by the contents covered by the eight Pilot Actions and, in a second stage, fed by other related contents from the participating universities. Within pilot actions, courses were given to classes of about 15 to 30 students (approx. 200 in total). The material used for training provided the basis to “fill in” the knowledge platform and the e-library, with the technical references used for the lessons of the Pilot Action courses.

The Pilot Actions included lecturing of seven Courses, one at each participating country. The courses were broadcasted through the videoconference system among the seven Universities.

A stakeholders network was created by putting together the stakeholders network per participating country. Thus, seven stakeholders networks were created and the participation of most of those stakeholders in the different events that were organised in the frame of the TrainMoS project.

As the Action was a training project it is not possible to infer any direct impact on road congestion, modal shift or improvements to transport services.


The project had mainly a social impact with the creation of new jobs and professional figures. Some of the University students involved in the project immediately found job in companies involved in the project as well as in the transport sector.

The project also started further research project on the LNG as marine fuel with development of specific university courses at different level on the alternative fuels for maritime transport.

The project also contributed to the new definition of MoS intended not only as SSS but as the complete chain of transport composed by:

Pure shipping and maritime transport

Port activities, including the activities related to the administrative and customs procedures

Land transport (road and rail)

The project also led to Train-MoS II project focused on the use of LNG as marine fuel and green power package.

Another result of the project was the creation of the “On the MoS Way” information platform developed by the project partner Circle.


April, 2017 217

Project reference: COSTA - 2011-EU-21007-S



Start date: February 2012

End date: April 2014


Spain, United Kingdom, Portugal, Germany, Italy, Greece







Portos dos Açores – Port Authority

Portos da Madeira – Port Authority

Grimaldi Group – Shipping Company

Grandi Navi Veloci – Shipping Company

Liguria Region – Regional Authority

Italian Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport – National Administration

Instituto Portuário e dos Transportes Marítimos – National Administration

Almazán Ingenieros – Specialised Consultancy / Engineering

Fundación Valenciaport – Specialised Consultancy / Engineering

RINA – Specialised Consultancy / Engineering

OceanFinance – Specialised Consultancy / Engineering


The COSTA Action aimed at developing framework conditions for the use of LNG for ships in the Mediterranean, Atlantic Ocean and Black Sea areas. It resulted in preparing an LNG Masterplan for SSS between the Mediterranean Sea and North Atlantic Ocean as well as the Deep Sea cruising in the North Atlantic Ocean towards the Azores and the Madeira Island. The feasibility study results promoted Motorways of the Sea sustainability, contributing to the common effort addressing climate change, in particular with respect to the implementation of the requirements of Annex VI of the MARPOL Convention.

The project complemented the results of the LNG North Sea and Baltic project 2010-EU-21112-S. This could increase the potential of Motorways of the Sea by lowering transport costs and reducing CO2, NOx and SOx emissions, in conjunction with greening the transport corridors and using LNG as an alternative to marine bunker. If COSTA's policy recommendations were implemented, it is expected that CO2 emissions from shipping could drop by 25% in 2020 and by 50% in 2050. For the air pollutants the use of LNG would


April, 2017 218

Project reference: COSTA - 2011-EU-21007-S eliminate SOx and reduce NOx by 90%.


COSTA turned out to be a successful project: it paved the way not only to some follow up Actions approved in the 2014 MAP of Motorways of the Seas, e.g. Seaterminals and Poseidon Med, but also because it was the definition of common Italian, Portuguese, French, Spanish, Croatian and Slovakian pre-deployment LNG projects worth more than 200 million Euro.

Having said that, the best conclusions on the Action are:

the statement of the Portuguese Government (Directorate General for Energy) made on 30 September 2014;

the record on the Spanish Senate documents of the presentation on LNG strategic aspects done by the COSTA Spanish team on 2 April 2014 based on which the Environmental Committee of the Parliament agreed a follow up;

the fact that the draft report of the Italian Inter-ministerial Committee on the National LNG Strategy acknowledges the results of COSTA and uses it widely

No impact was expected in regards to road congestion, modal shift or improvements to transport services.


Given the nature of the project, the most important impacts concern the environment and to a lesser extent social impacts.

Since at the moment no pilot project has been implemented no concrete and tangible effect are observed.

However, COSTA was a precursor of the whole line of research for the adoption of LNG as fuel in the naval sector.

The project has also led to the creation of a set of guidelines for the implementation of EU Directives on alternative fuels.

The project ended and led to a series of other TEN-T /CEF projects that were already defined during the project implementation.

Project reference: Sustainable Traffic Machines - On the way to greener shipping - 2012-EU-21023-S



Start date: January 2012 End date: December 2015


Denmark, Germany



Total actual project cost: €12,916,000 Actual EU contribution: €6,458,000 Percentage of EU support: 50%


April, 2017 219

Project reference: Sustainable Traffic Machines - On the way to greener shipping - 2012-EU-21023-S


Scandlines Deutschland GmbH – Shipping Company

Scandlines Danmark A/S – Shipping Company


This Pilot Action covers the installation of hybrid propulsion and exhaust gas cleaning solutions on 2 RoPax vessels deployed on the maritime link Rødby-Puttgarden. The 'Traffic Machine', a combined freight and passenger maritime service, represents a perfect fit for the market-oriented test and real-life demonstration of the planned innovative and prototype solution.

The Action's innovative character is marked by a unique combination of propulsion and exhaust gas cleaning technologies to specific requirements both of environmental regulations and standardized ferry operations. The innovative concept, to be tested within the Action, is based on a two-stage approach: reducing the vessels' total energy demand and allowing for the installation of the smallest possible scrubber configuration (minimising negative characteristics like weight, stability and space/payload issues).

Energy savings will be mainly achieved by installing new sets of propellers and a hybrid drive, representing the world's largest ever marine hybrid solution (battery capacity: 2,6 MWh). The Action provides a new standard of hybrid technology leading to pure battery operation and long-term zero emission targets.

By further reducing the greenhouse-gas emissions of the ferry operation, the overall project significantly contributes to the Union's CO2 emissions targets. Furthermore, it prepares the whole service for the upcoming sulphur regulation at the time, presenting other maritime operators in the SECA areas a possible method of compliance without losing their competitiveness.

The project results will be made public and disseminated, through defined channels, within the maritime industry.


It is assumed that the market share of the Scandlines service has been at least maintained due to cost reductions and enhanced environmental performance of the service.

The competitiveness of the full services has been maintained in terms of regularity, frequency, efficiency and flexibility.

Additional impact assessment, evaluation and/or

Reduction of emissions through scrubber technology and hybrid engines leading to lower CO2 and sulphur emissions through measuring of fuel reduction control (detailed method was


April, 2017 220

Project reference: Sustainable Traffic Machines - On the way to greener shipping - 2012-EU-21023-S feasibility studies associated with the project:

discussed with INEA).

Project reference: Methanol: The marine fuel of the future - 2012-EU-21017-S






Sweden, Germany, Finland







Wärtsilä Finland Oyl – Specialised Consultancy

Göteborgs Hamn AB - Port Authority

Stena Aktiebolag – Shipping Company

SEEHAFEN KIEL GmbH & Co. KG – Shipping Company

Stena Oil AB – Oil Company


This pilot action will test the performance of methanol on the existing passenger ferry Stena Germanica operating between the ports of Gothenburg and Kiel. The Stena Germanica is the world’s second largest Ro-Pax ferry. The running of the Stena Germanica on methanol will allow the vessel to comply with the new Sulphur Emission Control Area rules ahead of the 2015 deadline. The proposed Action will provide the real “live test” to prove the feasibility of methanol as a future fuel for shipping, deliver the engine conversion kit which can be further implemented on other ships, and provide the important and ultimate piloting culmination of many years of research. In addition to retrofitting the vessel, the pilot action will also create the appropriate port infrastructure for the supply of methanol for bunkering: a bunker vessel and a storage tank will be built to carry methanol, as well as the corresponding facilities in both ports. The project will bring benefits to the Motorways of the Sea (TEN-T Priority Project 21) on the Baltic Sea as well as have positive impacts on the cohesion of the entire Baltic Sea region. The results of the Action will be shared publicly with the maritime industry.

Data on the impact of the project on road congestion; modal shift from road to maritime

Achieving a decrease of road congestions was not the aim of the project. Aiming at a modal split was not the objectives of the project.

The project proved that it is feasible using methanol as


April, 2017 221

Project reference: Methanol: The marine fuel of the future - 2012-EU-21017-S freight transport; and/ or the regularity, frequency, efficiency and flexibility of the transport offer in the project area:

marine fuel while maintaining the service quality in terms of regularity, frequency, efficiency and flexibility


As the project proved the feasibility of using methanol as marine fuel it has triggered huge interests in methanol as fuel through potential followers and moreover, spill-over effects may be triggered to energy production companies.

Project reference: Kvarken Multimodal Link - Midway Alignment of the Bothnian Corridor - 2012-EU-21013-M

Type of project: Mixed: studies, work and start-up aid





Finland, Sweden







The Kvarken Council – Local Authority


This Motorway of the Sea project looked at upgrading the transport link between northern Sweden and western Finland, including land and waterborne transport systems. It consisted in designing, constructing and improving the transport links through new transport patterns, multimodal logistics and cost efficient solutions, including:

Works: infrastructure investments made in both countries in order to improve port logistics, rail connections and port intermodality. Capital costs: start-up aid for a temporary ferry, including the necessary upgrading and adjustments made and planned for this temporary solution. The upgrading and adjustments were used as examples during the analyses and concept development. Studies: which included an analysis of traffic management and organizational aspects of the transport link, as well as the development of a transport concept to meet the needs and provided a good foundation as input for the detailed design or procurement of a ferry.


April, 2017 222

Project reference: Kvarken Multimodal Link - Midway Alignment of the Bothnian Corridor - 2012-EU-21013-M

The Action aimed at bringing benefits to the Motorways of the Sea (TEN-T Priority Project 21) on the Baltic Sea as well as having positive impacts on the cohesion of the entire Baltic Sea region. It wanted especially improve the environmental performance of the connection and the accessibility of this peripheral region.


There was however, observational evidence that activity undertaken in phase 1 of the project has supported a modal shift. However, as the ferry is yet to be delivered, there is no concrete supporting data. The shift from road to sea transport was observed in relation to the temporary ferry currently in use.

The investment in port logistics and infrastructure to support rail and port intermodality is the main efficiency impact of the MoS project


For Phase 1, reports were produced detailing background analysis of the socioeconomic, environmental and goods and passenger analysis. Other documents include a concept report for the new ferry, and associated signed papers approved by the project management. The project team also compiled a results summary for the purpose of securing political support to ensure delivery of phase 2.

Project reference: Winter Navigation Motorways of the Sea, WINMOS - 2012-EU-21008-M

Type of project: Mixed: studies and works





Sweden, Estonia, Finland








Finnish Transport Agency – National Administration

Estonian Maritime Administration – National Administration

Image Soft Oy - Specialised Consultancy

ILS Oy – Engineering Company

Aker Arctic Technology OY – Specialised Consultancy


April, 2017 223

Project reference: Winter Navigation Motorways of the Sea, WINMOS - 2012-EU-21008-M

Yrkeshögskolan Novia – Research Centre

Ilmatieteen laitos – Other


WINMOS is an action aiming to further develop efficient maritime transport during winter when sea ice covers large parts of the EU's northernmost waters. The Action will develop and adapt the winter navigation system for the benefit of all stakeholders involved in trade and maritime transport in the Baltic Sea area. It includes further cooperation between ice breaking authorities, resource planning, as well as upgrading and renewal of the necessary icebreaking resources.

The Action will contribute in particular to formulation of an icebreaking long term strategy in the Baltic Sea, improvements of the environmental performance and fuel saving on old engines aboard an existing Swedish icebreaker, piloting new fuel injection technique (common rail) on other icebreakers as well as upgrading the existing Icebreaking Management System, IBNet, to the contemporary needs. Software for training simulators for winter navigation will be upgraded to become more realistic.

Sufficient icebreaking resources for the next coming years will be ensured by life extension measures executed on four Swedish icebreakers built in the '70s and a new building of a Finnish state-owned icebreaker. These vessels are together a prerequisite for winter navigation in the Northernmost Baltic Sea area. Sufficient icebreaking resources will ensure efficient winter navigation for the next coming years, which is of high importance for the trade between the Northern and the more Central part of the European Union.


The development of a improved navigation system will encourage businesses to transport goods by sea (as opposed to other methods) in the winter, however no there are no direct or concrete impacts in terms of modal shift have been recorded.

The project has potentially created marginal market distortion as there is currently very limited or no supply of ice breakers. There have been some environmental improvements, however, it is difficult to determine the cost-effectiveness of these piloted improvements, as ice breakers are only used for relatively short periods.

Project reference: BRIDGE - Building the Resilience of International & Dependent Gateways in Europe - 2013-EU-21001-P





Member states France, United Kingdom


April, 2017 224

Project reference: BRIDGE - Building the Resilience of International & Dependent Gateways in Europe - 2013-EU-21001-P involved:







Conseil Régional Nord-Pas de Calais (Siège de Région) – Regional Authority

Dover Harbour Board – Port Authority


The Dover-Calais Motorways of the Sea bridge, part of TEN-T Priority Project 21 (Motorways of the Sea), is considered as a key logistical corridor. By 2030, a growth in freight traffic is forecast to increase by 40%. In order to meet the demands of the market and support the resilience of the corridor, this project will upgrade the link investing in innovative solutions to adapt and enhance current infrastructure in both ports and improve traffic management across multiple modes.

The main objectives of this project were to:

Improve the existing maritime link to achieve a viable, regular and frequent traffic (on average 41 return crossings per day) where freight is predominant

Improve access to peripheral and island countries by connecting mainland Europe with the UK and indirectly with Ireland and concentrate the freight traffic to and from Ireland through the Dover-Calais sea route

Enhance the efficiency and reliability of the sea link and address bottlenecks within the ports and their hinterlands through traffic management improvements at the Port of Dover, major berth enhancements at the Ports of Dover and Calais, as well as a multimodal platform which includes a rail terminal and an innovative electronic logistics management system aimed at improving the unaccompanied freight flows in the Port of Calais


The project has helped mitigate some of the effects of additional security measures that can cause port delays and congestion. There is 50% additional capacity at Dover established by the first and second BRIDGE projects.


April, 2017 225

Project reference: Sustainable Motorway of the Sea Ghent-Gothenburg through environmental upgrade and compliance while maintaining competitiveness of short sea shipping - 2013-EU-21015-P






Belgium, Sweden, Denmark







Gothenburg Ro-Ro Terminal – Terminal Operator

DFDS A/S – Multimodal Transport Operator

DFDS Seaways AB – Multimodal Transport Operator

DFDS Seaways NV – Multimodal Transport Operator


The project covers all necessary technical, supply and market measures related to the environmental upgrade of three modern mid-/ large-size RoRo ships. It will install scrubber technologies on Freesia, Magnolia and Primula Seaways that ensure regular, reliable and frequent (6 departures per week and direction) maritime transport service between the TEN-T category A seaports of Ghent (Belgium) and Gothenburg (Sweden).

The project aimedl also to make some quality and viability improvements of the maritime link and port terminals. Port handling, terminal and vessel management and reliability will be improved by upgrading the intermodal handling equipment (Gothenburg) and installing a traffic management system with (live) weight measurements (Ghent).

The project has been implemented jointly by companies of DFDS group, ship owners and operators, as well as relevant port terminal operators.


The aim of the project was to maintain the competitiveness of the existing service. Regarding efficiency, due to installing scrubber technologies the exhaust of emissions has been kept clearly below the SECA threshold of 0.1% maximum sulphur content in fuel.

No data is available as a modal shift is hardly to measure. During the project a loss of cargo and customers appeared while also new cargo and customers were attracted. No direct link between this development and the MoS project can be identified.


April, 2017 226

Project reference: Pilot Implementation of a LNG-Propulsion System on a MoS Test Track in the Environmental Model Region 'Wadden Sea' - 2013-EU-21018-S






Germany, Netherlands







Groningen Seaports – Port Operator

Niedersachsen Ports GmbH & Co. KG – Port Operator

Energy Valley Foundation – Other Business

AG "Ems" & Co SchiffahrtsKommanditgesellschaft – Shipping Company


The specific objective of this Motorways of the Sea project was to deliver the pilot development and testing of the innovative methodology for LNG retrofitting. One of the vessels operating the Borkum service has been converted to LNG by retrofitting its propulsion system in an innovative manner.

The project constituted the continuation (Phase 2) of a previous action MariTIM implemented under INTEREG IV which is an R&D project with feasibility study.

Based on the findings of this R&D project, the first vessel under German flag has been retrofitted and equipped with LNG propulsion. The pilot project took the function of the demonstration project in the framework of the LNG Master Plan in the Wadden Sea and aimed to drive the development of the accelerated introduction of LNG in the Wadden Sea.

This in turn contributed to the realisation of the general objective that is to establish the Wadden Sea as an environmental model region for both, the accelerated introduction of LNG as alternative fuel for ships.

The project aimed also to contribute to achieving the objective of the Sulphur Emission Control Area, to reduce the SOx to 0.10% as of January 2015.

Data on the impact of the project on road congestion; modal shift from road to maritime freight transport; and/ or the regularity,

No detailed data is available. However, due to the increase of capacity of the service between Emden to Borkum, trucks have been attracted that used the service from Emden via Eemshaven to Borkum before. Hence, the number of trucks between Emden and Eemshaven was reduced.

The increase of capacity of the service between Emden-Borkum has lead to a shift of trucks from the service Eemshaven-Borkum to the service Emden-Borkum – meaning


April, 2017 227

Project reference: Pilot Implementation of a LNG-Propulsion System on a MoS Test Track in the Environmental Model Region 'Wadden Sea' - 2013-EU-21018-S frequency, efficiency and flexibility of the transport offer in the project area:

that oncarriage from Emden to Eemshaven by trucks has been reduced.

The length extension of the vessel has not merely lead to higher capacity but also to an increased cruise speed offering more flexibility and enhanced regularity. Hence, delays (e.g. due to tidal restrictions) can be better caught-up.


As a further environmental benefit, cold generated by LNG propulsion is used for the air-condition system for passengers.

A second ferry from AG Ems is to be expected for retrofitting.

Marco Polo

Project reference: Ro-Ro Past France - MPII-2007/004

Type of project: Freight Transport service



End date: November 2012


The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Finland

Source of financing: Marco Polo


Total eligible cost over project period: € 43,964,669

Total EU contribution paid: € 5,806,920


Transfennica Iberia S.L. – Shipping Company

Transfennica Belgium BVBA – Shipping Company

Oy Transfennica AB – Shipping Company

Brief project description

The Ro-Ro Past France project was selected under the 2007 Marco Polo selection procedure as a Motorway of the See action. It involves the implementation of a new regular Ro-Ro ferry service between Zeebrugge (BE) and Bilbao (ES). The aim was to start and operate a new regular Ro-Ro ferry service having a frequency of a total of six roundtrips per week (with the adding of a third and a fourth vessel). The service is based on 20 knot vessels with a capacity of approximately 198 trailers per vessel per trip, having a total transit time of around 48 hours which is comparable to road. The service also continues to the UK but this is not a part of the Marco Polo action

The project started on 01/09/07 as foreseen with two vessels (Russ series) providing three roundtrips per week. The service is operating with two vessels (Kraftca and Louise Russ) after cancelling a third vessel and the number of roundtrips has been reduced from three to two per week.


April, 2017 228

Project reference: Ro-Ro Past France - MPII-2007/004

The total modal shift achieved in the project period is 2.903.459.823 tkm which is 34.5% of their objective of 8,404,734,000 tkm.

For problems encountered, the project partners mentioned in particular the financial crisis and the high bunker prices for fuel used for the vessels compared to the diesel fuel prices which remained low. It has therefore been very difficult for the project partners to compete with traditional road transport companies especially since in the end the main tool to attract and maintain customers is a competitive price.


The total modal shift/traffic avoidance generated over the reporting period was 2,903,459,823 tkm (27% of the total planned modal shift).

The service continued operating for two years but as the services continued to make a financial loss the operator decided to suspend the service.

Project reference: Gulfstream.MOS - MPII-2010/081

Type of project: Freight Transport service



End date: March 2015


France

Source of financing: Marco Polo


Total eligible cost over project period: € 62,269,407

Total EU contribution paid: € 5,570,957


B.A.I. S.A. BRITTANY FERRIES – Shipping Company


Gulfstream.MOS is a Motorways of the Sea action providing a SSS Ro-Pax service between Bilbao and Santander (ES) and Portsmouth (UK).

The service uses the M/S Cap Finistere vessel and has frequency of 3 roundtrips per week between Portsmouth and Bilbao (twice a week) and Santander (once a week). Each crossing takes 24 hours. The objective of the action is to transport between 16,000 and 18,000 trucks per year, removing them from the road.

As the action is an upgrade of the existing services provided


April, 2017 229

Project reference: Gulfstream.MOS - MPII-2010/081 by the beneficiary between the northwest of Spain and the south of the UK, a baseline was established. Only modal shift produced above this baseline will be eligible for Marco Polo funding. The service also transports passengers, but only rolling cargo (accompanied and unaccompanied trailers), may be eligible.

The 1st progress technical report gave sufficient information to establish that the action has been enjoying a high success rate in the first year, compared to the initial estimations. The partners expected to produce modal shift of 494M tkm, having instead achieved 477M tkm, i.e. 96.5% of the estimated.

The final report states that 1,745,386,801 tkm of the modal shift was achieved during the action which is 82% of the objective.

Main problems encountered during the implementation of the project reported so far: the economic crisis which affected negatively the import of industrial products from Spain and Portugal; decreased value of British monetary unit; increase of fuel prices which had a negative impact on the revenues. However, the project managed to maintain the frequency of shipments over the period and no major interruptions were reported.


The total modal shift/traffic avoidance generated over the reporting period was 1,745,386,801 t.km (82.5% of the total planned modal shift).

The enhanced service makes three extra weekly round trips throughout the year between the ports of Santander or Bilbao (NW Spain) and Portsmouth (South UK) by-passing the French road network. The RoPax M/S Cap Finistère makes 2 round trips between Portsmouth and Bilbao, and one round trip between Portsmouth and Santander every week The new service has risen by 8% the share of direct Ro-Ro services between Spain and Great Britain now representing 14% of the overall HGV’s traffics between the two countries.

Interreg

Project reference: StratMos Motorways of the Seas Strategic Demonstration Project

Type of project: Demonstrator



End date: September 2011


Norway, Denmark, Germany, The Netherlands, Belgium, United Kingdom

Source of financing: ERDF

Share of the different sources of

ERDF Grant € 1,909,186


April, 2017 230

Project reference: StratMos Motorways of the Seas Strategic Demonstration Project financing: ERDF Equivalent € 968,920

Total Eligible Budget € 5,820,212


Rogaland County Council

Vest-Agder County Council

Telemark County Council

Møre and Romsdal County Council

Møregruppen

The Norwegian Barents Secretariat

Finnmark County Council

Troms County Council

Norwegian Coastal Authorities

Logit Systems

Port of Narvik

Hordaland County Council

Marlo – Local Authority

FDT - Association of Danish Transport Centres

Hamburg Ministry for Economic and Labour Affairs

Hafen Hamburg Marketing e.V.

Hamburg University of Technology

Port of Amsterdam

Flemish Ministry of Mobility and Public Works - Ports and Water Police Division

Sequoyah International Restructuring NV

ISCO

Descartes Systems Group

European Datacomm

Mediterranean Shipping Company (MSC)

University of Hull Logistics Institute

Aberdeenshire Council

Aberdeen City Council

Napier University

Scrabster Harbour Trust


The project aimed to promote and facilitate the shift of cargo from road to sea based inter-modal transport. StratMos strove to improve accessibility within the North Sea Region by supporting the implementation of the Motorways of the Sea concept and related transport networks in integrated logistical chains.


April, 2017 231

Project reference: StratMos Motorways of the Seas Strategic Demonstration Project

On the strategic level, the project intended to provide input for the Master Plan to be developed by the North Sea MoS Task Force as well as to EU entities. On the implementation level practical demonstration projects had to be carried out in order to demonstrate actions to be taken by public and private actors to improve the effectiveness of inter-modal transport, in particular related to hubs and hinterland connections.


Feasibility test of trucks using public transport lanes on the upgraded road serving Risavika Port near Stavanger and the connected rail terminal hub – supported by computer simulation - to improve the efficiency of the connection with the rail terminal hub.

Essential parameters to support a modal shift were analysed for different routes in the North Sea and between the North Sea and the Baltic Sea referring to pure short sea, feeder and barge services and recommendations were provided based on results of these analyses.

The analysed parameter referred also to potential improvements regarding regularity, frequency, efficiency and flexibility.


Pilot project with MSC based on chemical cargo flows from, BP between Port of Klaipeda and Port of Barcelona (from a BP inland terminal in Spain).

Demonstration pilot for a ‘Floating Container Storage and Transhipment Terminal – An innovative and low-cost port solution’.

ENPI

Project reference: TRACECA Regional Project – Logistics Processes and Motorways of the Sea II (LOGMOS II) - ENPI 2011/264-459

Type of project: Technical Assistance




EC partner states involved:

Direct :

the ENPI East partners (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine) and

Central Asia TRACECA countries (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan)

Indirect

Bulgaria

Romania

Turkey


April, 2017 232

Project reference: TRACECA Regional Project – Logistics Processes and Motorways of the Sea II (LOGMOS II) - ENPI 2011/264-459

Source of financing: ENPI - TRACECA


Budget: € 2.5 million


Target Group:

Ministries of Transport

Port and maritime administrations

Ports and terminal management

Border crossing agencies

Transport associations

Railway entities, shipping companies

Local associations and institutions

Business community

Beneficiaries:

Ministries of Transport of TRACECA Member States

PS IGC TRACECA


By assessing the network from a regional perspective the purpose of the assignment was to ensure that infrastructure and “soft” projects planned or implemented contribute to the continuity of TRACECA.

The focal points entailed:



Targeting regulatory framework and sector refoms for port, maritime and logistics operations as well as introduction of port environmental management systems.

Data on the impact of the project on road congestion; modal shift from road to maritime freight transport; and/ or the regularity, frequency, efficiency and flexibility of the transport offer in

The Ro-Ro traffic on the Caspian See increased during the period of the project but it is quite difficult to say if it was solely the effect of the project or a combination of the project and other economic conditions in the area. Some of the issues that were raised in the project are now addressed. Mainly some of the idea developed in the project for the improvement of the rail connection (in Aktau port development plan).

The project was successful in achieving the objective of developing a Masterplan for the development of Traceca corridor that was discussed with the stakeholder and


April, 2017 233

Project reference: TRACECA Regional Project – Logistics Processes and Motorways of the Sea II (LOGMOS II) - ENPI 2011/264-459 the project area: approved from the side of the beneficiary.

The challenge consisted in the fact that it was a transport project but the main barriers and problems are in the trade facilitation sector as:

Borders procedures

Custom procedures

Corruption

Liberalization of transport market

Difference in the level of development in transport sector between the different countries

Political tension and conflict between countries that prevent cooperation

Project reference: MEDA MOS II - ENPI 2008/020-538

Type of project: Technical Assistance




EC partner states involved:

Engineering firm ARUP (UK) provided the project management and sourced EU experts but the beneficiaries were external countries. Spain provided a project office alongside Morocco.

Source of financing: ENPI


Budget: € 7,500,000 (EC contribution)


Countries included:

Algeria

Egypt

Israel

Jordan

Lebanon

Morocco

Palestine Territories

Tunisia

Turkey (observer status)

Syria was originally included but was withdrawn due to the civil war.


The objective of MEDA-MoS II was to facilitate the transport of goods, ensure the integration and efficiency of intermodal links in goods traffic and maritime transport between the European Union and the Mediterranean partner countries, but


April, 2017 234

Project reference: MEDA MOS II - ENPI 2008/020-538 also among Mediterranean countries themselves. It aimed at promoting interoperability between ports and their hinterland, as well as ensuring the efficiency of logistics platforms, ports and maritime transport connections.

1. Technical Assistance for the implementation of existing Pilot Projects. Where necessary, identification of New Pilot Projects. Increased technical assistance to improving Logistics and Hinterland connections to‐from ports. Focus on Environmental aspects in port operations and management.

2. Assessment of Regulatory Reforms including Port Reforms.

3. Master Plan and Road Map for the integration of MEDA‐MoS in Trans-Mediterranean Transport Network (TMN-T).

4. Communication and training.

The instruments used to support these networks were diverse in nature. The MEDA-MoS programme provided technical assistance. Additional support for transport infrastructure in neighbouring countries was available in the framework of the Neighbourhood Investment Facility (NIF), with an allocation of 745 million EUR for the period 2007-2013. The Trans-European Transport Network projects (TEN-T) focused essentially on direct support for investment in the infrastructure and transport of the member states of the European Union.


The project helped to develop administrative procedures to improve Southern Mediterranean ports operability and interaction with other EU ports as well as develop routes and trading links involving operators in the naval sector.

The technical support was received well by the recipient countries – who led the agenda. The political situation in some of the countries involved created difficulties in project implementation and there were changed personnel in some of the institutions which delayed progress. The project manager from ARUP thought that the levels of new collaborations were the most important impacts of the project and would reap benefits in the longer term (citing in particular collaborations between Israel and the Palestine Territories). An example of a practical impact was a change to the inspection of ships in Egypt with efficiency gains.


April, 2017 235

Annex 6 List of key reports, data and other literature reviewed

Category Key documents

Legal and policy documentation

EU Transport Policy White Paper - COM(2001) 370 final

TEN-T Guidelines, Decision No 884/2004/EC

Commission Staff Working Document: Report on the Motorways of the Sea - State of Play and Consultation, COM(2007) 606 final

EU Transport Policy White paper: Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area - Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system, COM(2011) 144 final

Commission Communication on the Extension of the major trans-European transport axes to the neighbouring countries - Guidelines for transport in Europe and neighbouring regions, COM(2007)32 final

TEN-T Guidelines, Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013

Connecting Europe Facility, Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013

Group of Transport Ministers of the Western Mediterranean. 2010. Realising the Trans-Mediterranean Transport Network: the need for a dedicated European Fund

Regional Transport Action Plan for the Mediterranean Region (RTAP) 2014 – 2020

European Commission (2005), Cohesion Policy in Support of Growth and Jobs: Community Strategic Guidelines, 2007-2013, COM(2005) 0299

Monitoring and evaluation reports

Annual reports of the European Coordinator for Motorways of the Sea

European Commission (2010) Evaluation of the Marco Polo Programme 2003-2010

European Court of Auditors (2013) Have the Marco Polo programmes been effective in shifting traffic off the road?; Special Report No 3

‘Improving the Concept of ‘Motorways of the Sea’ – European Parliament PE 540.330 - Committee on Transport and Tourism

Evaluation Report - Regional Transport Action Plan (2007-2013)

Interact (2014) Cross -Border Cooperation Maritime Programmes in the 2007 -2013 programming period

Call documentation

Analysis of the different call for proposals issued by the different funding instruments

Projects reports and data

Project fiches, presentations and interim/ final reports (where available)

Analysis of existing datasets and compiled documents about MoS projects


April, 2017 236

Category Key documents

Academic and grey literature found through online research

Baird, A. 2007. The economics of Motorways of the Sea.121

Haralambous, G. 2005. The contribution of the “Sea Motorways” to the European Transport Policy

Parantainen, J. and Merilainen. A. 2007. The Baltic Sea Motorway - recent development and outlook for the future

Kristiansen, J. 2007. Motorways of the Sea Impact of Ferry Services and New SSS Concepts

Paulauskas, V. and Bentzen, K. 2008. Sea motorways as a part of the logistics chain

Hache, J-D. 2009. Integrating the EU islands in the MoS

Trujillo, L. and Medda. F. 2009. Road Freight Market Distortion and the Viability of SSS

Matczak, M. Ołdakowski, B. and Friedrichowicz, M. 2010. Baltic Motorways of the Sea. Successful projects, barriers and challenges for MoS policy implementation

Baird, A. 2010. Redefining maritime transport infrastructure

Francesca Medda, Lourdes Trujillo. 2010. Short-sea shipping: an analysis of its determinants

Gese Aperte, X. and Baird, A.J. 2012. Motorways of the sea policy in Europe.

Paixão Casaca, 2008. Motorway of the sea port requirements: the viewpoint of port authorities

Bonne, P. 2010. Update on the Motorways of the Sea concept as part of TEN-T

Cappucilli, JF. Douet. M. 2011. A review of Short Sea Shipping policy in the European Union

Baindur, D. and Viegas. J. 2011. Challenges to implementing motorways of the sea concept—lessons from the past

Baindur, D. and Viegas. J. 2012. Success factors for developing viable Motorways of the Sea projects in Europe

Matczak, M. 2012. Motorways of the sea – from concept to implementation within the Baltic Sea area

Roumboutsos, A. 2012. Trends and perspectives of short sea shipping in the Mediterannean basin

Beškovnik. B. 2013. Possibilities for Motorways of the Sea development in the eastern part of the Adriatic Sea

121 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03088830701538976#.VDaOT_mSx8E

HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS

Free publications:

• one copy: via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);

• more than one copy or posters/maps: from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm); from the delegations in non-EU countries (http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm); by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) or calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*). (*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).

Priced publications:

• via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu).

Priced subscriptions:

• via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union (http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).

doi: 10.2832/08198

MI-0

2-1

7-4

69-E

N-N

Documents

Motorways of the Sea - European Commission · The evaluation covers the period 2001-2013 and therefore excludes Motorways of the Sea (MoS) projects funded under the Connecting Europe